The Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?

Craig,

Have you ever read "Departure" by G H Lang? It gives a personal, historical and doctrinal perspective of "The Brethren", and what happened to their movement (In Lang's opinion).

The first part deals with what Lang believed was RC "departure" from Biblical church polity.

I recommend it.

Lacy

 

x

 

Bob,

Let's not re-write the Bible to suit our personal theological preferences! There is no mention in the passage that you quoted that even remotely suggests that the WHOLE GROUP made decisions; it merely says that it "pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men . . . .” Very many expositors interpret this to mean that the apostles and elders were pleased to do as James said needed to be done. In other words, they not only accepted his authority in this case, but they were happy to do so.

 

Acts21:18. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

If James was not the head of the Church, why did Paul go to see him at this point in his ministry? And notice that no one else is mentioned here by name. No, we do not have any explicit statements in the New Testament saying that James was in authority over the New Testament Church, but I am simply refuting the false statement that you made in an earlier post in which you said that there was “no evidence” to that effect. The mere fact that you choose not to interpret the Biblical evidence as I and very many others do does not eliminate the evidence.

As for the Pseudepigraphal and other extra-biblical evidence, the mere fact that these works are not canonical in no way means that they misrepresent the history of the New Testament Church. Furthermore, even if SOME of the history can be brought into QUESTION, that does not invalidate everything in the writings, and although you may not believe that the evidence PROVES my conclusions, the evidence is nonetheless there.

Even Scofield writes of James as being the “leader” of the Church in JERUSALEM, and last time I looked at a map, Galatia was not in Jerusalem. If James had no authority over the GALATIAN Church, why did James say, regarding the problems in the GALATIAN Church, "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

Whether some Baptists like it or not, there is evidence that James was the head of the New Testament Church.

 

Maybe you should say "cut the umbilical cord" ...

 

Scriptures that simply will not square with the heirarchial, presbyterial, or "one man rule" heresies:

"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

How does this teaching of Christ apply practically? Hear Paul to the Corinthians:


"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of judgement."

And,

"Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many."

Here is what really happened at the Antioch conference:

"Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas."

We do have one example in the Bible of one man running the church. It is found in III John where John said,

"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrophes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethen, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeht evil hath not seen God."

Here we have the explicit word of God that the "one man rule" idea is evil and not of God.

Would to God that those who aren't really Baptists would just say so and go away and leave the Baptists alone.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Actually, Mark, those verse confirm congregational rule. They say absolutely nothing about the leadership of the pastor.

 

Matt Black,

You asked,

In the Matthew passages Jesus was speaking to the church at Jerusalem. In Ephesians Paul addressed the church at Ephesus and in Colossians the church at Colosse.

As with all other teachings about the church, what applies to one church applies to every valid church; for when Jesus commissioned the church at Jerusalem He commanded them to teach the new converts to observe all that He had commanded them. We see this cleary in the Revelation when Jesus concluded the specific letters to each church with a general call to all the churches:

"He that has an ear let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

I don't "make" anything of it because it does not exist. The New Testament presents a consistently uniform teaching of the church, which is: the church is always a local body, the government of the church is congregational, and the ministry of the church is plural with no distinction in rank.

I might add that the New Testament also exemplifies an associational relationship among the churches as traditionally practiced among the Baptists; not a hierarchial or synodical rule, as among Catholics and Protestans, nor a board or convention system as among modernist Baptists. Rather, we find the New Testament churches working together in evangelism, benevolence, and doctrinal consultation on a basis of equality and through their messengers.

This is the good old Baptist way. If the modernist Baptists are compelled to continue in their departure from it, certainly they will not condemn those of us who still take the New Testament as an all sufficient rule of faith and practice for walking in it.

Mark Osgatharp

 

One for three is a good batting average, but not much good in theology. The church is not only local. There is very clearly an invisible aspect to the church since Christ only has one body. It is made up of all Spirit baptized believers (from Pentecost til the Rapture). Secondly, there are very clearly distinctions in ministry in the local church. God has established the office of pastor to rule over the church (1 Tim 3; 1 Peter 5; Acts 20; 1 Thess 5).

 

Matt Black,

You said,

The church which Jesus addressed in Matthew 16, which is later called "the church which was at Jerusalem", did exist and was mobile; it followed Jesus wherever He went. So you are correct in saying that it was Jesus' church - "my church" - and that it was at Cesarea.

You are incorrect, however, in saying that it did not exist, for it did exist. If no church existed at that time Jesus' instructions to "tell it to the church" would have been unintelligable.

After Jesus' ascension it settled - at least for a time - at Jerusalem and so was identified as "the church which was at Jerusalem" (Acts chapter 8); which phrase is not such much a name as it was a statement about where that particular church was then meeting.

I don't have time to answer your other post right now but will do so later today, Lord willing.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Matt,

Of course the "congregation" of Israel had "universalist connotations" because there was only one center of worship - Jerusalem - where the whole nation congregated. On the day of Pentecost the Jews from all over the whole world congregated there. That does not change the fact that when it was gathered it was a local congregation.

That the Matthew 16 passage is "universal" is sheer conjecture on your part and totally ignores the context. In both passages the "keys of the kingdom" are intrusted to the same "church" and chapter 18 makes it clear that the church is local - "where to or three are gathered together in my name."

"My church" means a "church that belongs to me." That church belonged to Jesus as well as every subsequent New Testament church. That is why Paul speaks of "the churches of Christ" which is to say the churches which belong to Christ.

To start with you have no idea what happened to the Jerusalem church beyond what is stated in the Bible. We know it was scattered abroad and for all you know the church I pastor may be it. A church's existence is not tied to a location - it is tied to a continuence of the truth by it's membership wherever they may be.

However, even if we concede that the Jerusalem church no longer exists, you argument is still fallacious. The promise "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" does not mean that a church will never die. The promise is that the powers of hell cannot prevail against it so long as it remains faithful to the Lord.

In the Revelation we see the real possibility of churches dying (such as Sardis). And yet to the faithful church at Philadelphia He promised,

"I have set before you an open door and no man can shut it."

This is what is entailed in the promise "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If the first church did die (which is by no means proven) it died because of unfaithfulness to God - not because Satan overpowered it.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Matt,

Most certainly. I've been reading the good old King James Version New Testament.

No, it hasn't.

First of all, it is mere conjecture that the "they" who ordained the elders was Paul and Barnabas. But even if it were, it does not prove that they did so without the consent of the churches. I have many times heard Baptist preachers say "we ordained" so and so. They don't mean that they were the ordaining authority, but simply that they participated in an ordination service.

All of which proves what I stated above - that the New Testament churches had a plurality in the ministry. It does not prove that the ministry exercised authority over the churches.

As above, the fact that Titus ordained elders does not mean he did so without the consent of the churches.

We know of a certainty that John commanded Gaius not to follow evil leaders. If the elders of the church rule by fiat, then this Scripture could not be obeyed. They whole idea of hierarchial, presbyterial, or one man rule binds the people that they must be subject to men that may well be ungodly men.

We can see the fruit of such wicked doctrine in the scandals that have rocked the Roman Catholic church and the recent ordination of an impenitent sodomite in the Episcopal church, as well as the numerous occasions where dominating pastors have led their congregations into cultic practices and doctrines.

Mark Osgatharp