The Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?

Let's go back to " angel" in Rev. The literal meaning of the word is "messanger". It is not a meaning, it is the meaning. By translating it angel it does not change that meaning. Now, why would Christ tell John to WRITE anything to a spiritual being, what would this purpose be? Where do we find in scripture that an angelic being presides over a local body? The context would suggest that John is taking down a message to give to a single messanger for each church represented. I have never heard anyone argue that these messages were to be given by a heavenlybeing. Please explain in your own words, Anyone.

 

1Thes 5
12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves.
27 I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.

If there are people who are over others, surely common sense dictates that someone has to be on top?? But in the absence of an absolute scriptural mandate, I don't see how one could argue that a church must be governed one way or another. It must be governed, that much is obvious. Someone will be held accountable for its governance.

Acts 20
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

James 3
1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

I don't know how the Holy Ghost makes people overseers of a flock. But the overseers are over the flock and the flock is to be subject to them in some way. If your flock has one overseer, or a multitude of overseers, their function should be the same: to feed the flock and keep an eye out for wolves.

 

There is a good book on Elder leadership titled Biblical Eldershipby Alexander Strauch. It raises many good points that we have been discussing on this thread. I'd recommend it to any that are interested. You can find it at Christian Book Distributors online at christianbook.com.

I have always held that the angels of the seven churches referred to the pastors of those churches. The pastors were the messengers of God to those local congregations, just as our pastors should be today. Some historical accounts indicate that Polycarp was the "angel" (bishop/pastor) of the church at Smyrna that John addressed the letter to in Revelation.

 

This "angel" was the same angel as in v. 30 - God himself.

I agree but I think that Christ himself follows the type of Moses moreso than any church pastor or apostle.

1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 3:3 For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.

Hebrews 9:19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:


3. Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
4. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. </font>[/QUOTE]Br. Lacy,
It is indeed true that the angel in reference in Acts is God. To say that, somehow, clear scripture on the leading of millions of Jews through the wilderness by one man is not a picture to be followed is quite presumptuous. Of course they were lead by Jesus, Corinthians affirms that "...for they followed that spiritual rock and that rock was Christ..." In our example, again, entreating you as a father, I remind us that the OT is written for our admonition. We have one single solitary man leading millions across the wilderness. This one man established, by the grace of God, other men to help facilitate the administration of the people. These people, presumably Deacons and Elders, were given authority under Moses which was under God. This picture is clear.

The folks trying to deviate from this picture also suggest that one need not pay tithes, they suggest "gathering together in the name of Jesus" but don't suggest gathering together in the name of Jesus at a church. I know "eat the meat, spit out the bones" but there is too much poison in it. I know you know this, but rat poison is 99% nutritious. Does this mean we should consume any of it, "eat the meat?"

1 Peter 5
1. The elders which are among you I exhort...
2. ...taking the oversight thereof,

You pointed out the area of the verse that says "..neither being Lords over God's heritage..." I want to point out that they were to take the oversight. Meaning authority over. Why? Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

In truth the only offices that were ever established by the Holy Spirit in scripture is that of the bishop and deacon. What and if the elders referenced in 1 Peter were those that were converted long ago, while Peter was younger, that have just grown up in age?

Jesus said to Peter in John, "Lovest thou me... Feed my sheep." Without a doubt the sheep belong to Jesus, but the feeding of them was given to one.

Summing this up, plurality, as best as I can tell is necessitated based upon need; not the need of leadership, but the need of daily administration. So that the "Moses" of the various churches can "go up to mount" to recive of God.

As far as having to pay bills and write sermons, you should have counted the cost, I say this with tears and love. A great man of God said in a sermon that there are four things about a cricified man. His sermon was in relation to the pastoral ministry. He said a crucified man looks in one direction, holds on to nothing, has not future plans and is not comming back. Here is my explaination of these four things.

1.) A cruficied man looks in one direction:
If a man is called of God, he needs to do ONE thing and that's to preach. Maybe Pastors these days take on too many things. Have too many projects and no time to "go up to the mount." Looking in many directions he can go nowhere!

2.) A crucified man holds on to nothing:
All too often we are trying to have our cake and eat it too. And many preachers have a full time job and preach on the side as a hobby. Let go of the world and trust Christ. If God has promised to supply all your needs according to his riches in glory then what were you worried about! God didn't fail! Hebrews 12:15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;

3.) A crucified man has no future plans:
He is not going up to be crucified at 3 and will be available for dinner at 5. Once his mind is made up, that's it. There is no room to quit! Why did you quit? You say the bills are piling up, why didn't you smite the river and say "Where is the LORD God of Elijah??" I am not a Pastor, and can not begin to imagine what exactly you were going through. But one of the qualifications of a pastor is one that ruleth his house well. I have a wife and three children at home. I am responsible for making sure my wife is happy and can perform the duties of raising and educating the children. My responsibility to encourage her to keep going and that I and, most importantly Jesus, is there to help in what ever capacity needed. I am responsible to pay the bills. If the bills get to a point where they can't be paid on time, I am to talk with the company, explaining my situation to them for two reasons 1.) to be honest before man and God and 2.) so my wife NEVER has to be burdened with more than she can bear. This sounds much like, although not the same, and leading a church. That's why it was there. A preacher should have not other plans but to see those to whom he is sent to minister, saved! Why did you start if all you were going to do was quit? Bob Jones Sr. is quoted to have said "The door of success, swings on the hinges of opposition." Not planning to succeed IS planning to fail.

4.) A crucified man is not coming back:
If your mind is made up, your mind is made up. Are you resolved, were you? I am not trying to be mean or ugly, but as Elihu said:
7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom.
8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment.
10 Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion. (Job 32)

A crucified man is not coming back. There is no reason to turn back. God said "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Did you forget the exhortation of scritpture? Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I do so want to be in the ministry. I see a need in the Negro community, particularly where my parents live in Oklahoma. I have prayed with tears, earnestly beseeching the Lord for an opportunity, if called, to preach there. I have conveyed these desires to my pastor and he, under the authority of God, has counseled me is some things that I need to work on. Since these are my plans, to minister in that area, I am resolved to do what ever it takes to be the most effective for Christ. Everyone called to minister should be.

You know that I love you, these words needed to be said.

Your brother and true yokefellow,
Lewis

 

So "Angel" means "messenger". Messager MUST be "pastor". Therefore the pastor is the angel of the church. This is not a stretch?

Where is the Biblical support for the word "angel" being used to describe a living man. Where is a single instance of a bishop/elder/pastor being called "The messenger OF the church"? I might could understand, "messenger To the church."

As to your question, "Where do we find in scripture that an angelic being presides over a local body?", I suggest that we find it "suddenly" right here in Revelation 2,3. I suppose that it could be supported by the fact that we get "sudden" insight (Daniel 10) into the heavenlies when it is revealed that angelic beings preside over nations. (Michael over Israel).


I'm not being dogmatic about the "angel" thing, but there are at least two interpretations that are much more logical. (Actual angels, or actual messengers OF the churches.) Angel=Pastor is a stretch.

 

I still wonder why John would write anything to an angel. And what is the messangers of the churches if not the ones who preach? explain.

 

I have always interpreted the angels of the seven churches to be the pastors of those congregations. As messengers of God's word it fits the context of the verses and is supported by the letter that John was writing by command of our Lord.

Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna during this period and may have been the "angel" (pastor) being addressed in John's letter to the church at Smyrna.

There is a good book, Biblical Eldership by Alexander Strauch, Lewis & Roth 1988. It addresses many of the issues we have been discussing on this thread if anyone is interested. You can purchase this at christianbook.com.

 

Anybody feel like they stepped into the middle of a private discussion and are at a loss as for what to say next?

Lacy

 

Online here:


http://www.nccn.net/~brennanp/BEphamphStrauch/PAMPHBEDOC.html


lacy

 

another good one is "Elders and Leaders" by Gene A. Getz

 

All,
I offer my sincere apologies for marring the name of Lacy on this board. It was not my intention, and did not realize until afterward the impact that my statements would have caused. Lacy has been a dear friend to me, although it would appear to be the opposite. I am very passionate about what I believe, and sometimes, in my zeal I "cut off the ears" of those that mean the most to me. Albeit not for purpose.

Proverbs 10:19
In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

-DeaconLew

 

No. It is supported by scripture. MOST referances to the church are on the local level, and there is no need to move away from this. I believe scripture shows both plurality of Elders, but also calls for one to carrie the weight of responsibility. I don't think there is anything wrong with the doctrinal stance of autonomy of the local church, but believing scripture teaches the church is JUST the local body is wrong. Ther is a universal body of believers, and scripture mainly deals with the individual gatherings of this body, or the local church.

 

As strong as I believe that my position is right, I still think we should leave that decision and that liberty of choice to each local assembly. after all, I might be wrong.

Lacy

 

At the final day all of the Lord's churches will combine into that one great body, but until then, we are separate bodies of Christ. Each body (local congregation of baptised believers) is completely the body of Christ where they are. All believers are part of the family of God at present, but members of local churches in particular.

 

At the final day all of the Lord's churches will combine into that one great body, but until then, we are separate bodies of Christ. Each body (local congregation of baptised believers) is completely the body of Christ where they are. All believers are part of the family of God at present, but members of local churches in particular. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree, I'm just saying that THE BODY os not JUST local. Also, what do you mean by "baptized" to be a member of the body. Explain from scripture. ( This isn't new to me. I know most Baptist churchs require baptism for membership, but is it scriptural, or is it a bilaw for each church?)

 

Act 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

In every instance in the new testament we see baptism as the first act of obedience following salvation. The verses I have included do not specifically state that it was a requirement for church membership, but they do infer that baptism and association with the Lord's church was linked.

 

This I can agree with, but it still is not a Biblical MANDATE for church membership. I have no problem with it. Just wondering who felt it might be absolutelty necissary? I agree that it is the first act of obediance upon salvation, but it is the Holy Spirit who places the believer in the Body of Christ, not man. I feel as a requirement for membership it does sho a level of comitment to the church also, along with the public testimony of a new life in Christ. The truth is that it will be tough for any of us to prove membership necissary by scripture. Just thoughts..