The Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?

In Acts 13, the church at Antioch led by its leaders sent Paul and Barnabas out. In ACts 14:26-27, Paul and Barnabas come back to report to the church. Why? Becuase the church sent them out.

That is the scriptural model of church ministry. The early church was governed by aposolic authority, just as we are. Some have brought up James and the apostles and their role in teh early church. IT is the same role that they have today: Authority. The form of that authority is different now.

The local church in the NT was not run by multiple elders, nor was it lorded over by a "pastor pope." It was led by a pastor who was instructed specifically not to lord it over the flock but to serve in humility. That is the scriptural approach.

 

I don't see any difference in Acts 20. If you read ACts 20, Paul calls the elders to himself and gives them instructions. Part of those instructions in v. 28 are to pastor and oversee. Therefore, it is an explicit statement that the elder/pastor/overseer is all the same office in the church. 1 PEter 5 does the exact same thing.

The NT gives this clear pattern. If there was another pattern (such as the separation of these offices), it would be seen. It is completely absent. There is no other pattern in the NT.

The situation in Acts 20 calls back to mind your argument yesterday about the "five fold ministry in Ephesus." But in Acts 20, we see Paul addressing those who were responsible for the church: the elders. It shows that there was not a five fold ministry, or pattern of church leadership. There was a pastor/teacher who job it was to equip the saints for the work of ministry so that the body would be built up. In other places (such as ACts 20), we see the instruction to the pastor/teachers to oversee (manage) and pastor (shepherd).

 

So actually James was the first pope and not Peter?

Lacy

 

That’s what the PROTESTANT history books say! (Sorry that I stepped all over your Roman Catholic shoes full of purgatory).

 

That’s what the PROTESTANT history books say! (Sorry that I stepped all over your Roman Catholic shoes full of purgatory).

</font>[/QUOTE]I'll make you a deal Craig. You show me a list of Catholics who were pre-mil, believed in eternal security, and taught that a believer's punishment in Hell (Purgatory as you call it) is limited to the time of Christ's literal 1000 year reign on earth and has nothing to do with salvation, but rather reward. Then we'll make a list of Catholics who believe a Christian can lose his salvation. Then we'll see who is wearing "popish" shoes.

Lacy

 

The list would be very short because even Roman Catholics know better than to believe that a believer's punishment in Hell (Purgatory as Baptists call it) is limited to the time of Christ's literal 1000 year reign on earth and has nothing to do with salvation, but rather reward.

 

The fact that James was the head of the New Testament Church until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic view that Peter was the first Pope except that it is proof that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about Peter.

The fact that James was the head of the New Testament Church until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. has very much to do with the Baptist ecclesiology.

 

Not substantially different. Probably less than 10 years or so. Certianly not enough to argue for your position.

But there is no evidence that there was not a singular leader in teh church at Ephesus. The book of 1 Timothy makes clear that there was a singular leader ... Timothy, who was left by Paul to fight the false teachers who had crept into the church.

 

Your statement is simply false; there is both New Testament and post-New Testament evidence that James was recognized as the head of the New Testament Church until at least 62 A.D:

Acts 12:17. But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.

Acts 15:13. After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me.
14. "Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.
15. "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
16. 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
17. SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'
18. SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
19. "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20. 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.

Acts 21:18. And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.
19. After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.
20. And when they heard it they began glorifying God; and they said to him, "You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law;
21. and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
22. "What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come.
23. "Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow;
24. take them and purify yourself along with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law.
25. "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication."
26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purifying himself along with them, went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

Gal. 1:19. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Gal. 2:9. and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
10. They only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do.
Peter (Cephas) Opposed by Paul
11. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
12. For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.

Notice the order given in Gal. 2:9: James and Cephas and John.

Post New Testament evidence is found in the following writings:

• Gospel according to Thomas
• Apocryphon of James
• Protevangelium of James
• First and Second Apocalypse of James
• Gospel of Peter
• Apocalypse of Peter
• Kerygma Petrou
• Acts of Peter
• Letter of Peter to Philip
• Act of Peter
• Memoirs of Hegesippus

Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, wrote in the fifth book of his Memoirs,

“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles.”

Note: All scriptures are from the NASB, 1995.

 

"The deeds of the Nicolaitans...which thing I hate"

Nicolaitans= nico--overthrow; laity--people.

Potentates, Popes, Cardinals, Archbishops, Archdeacons, etc, etc, have been overthrowing the people for many generations. Such things Jesus hates--Book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

In a New Testament Church, no one, save the Lord Jesus Christ is supreme--He is also the Head and chief cornerstone.

Pastors, teachers, evangelists, deacons and other servants are called by God. They are not Lords or superior in any way, shape, form or fashion.(All members are saints, by the way--that is: set aside for a Holy Purpose)

Elevation in a hiearchy is a man-made error sponsored by Satan who is actively engaged in trying to defile The Bride of Christ.

Jesus said the "Gates of Hell will not prevail...".

Selah,

Bro. James

 

You just assumed your conclusion. Many people disagree on the basis of valid reasoning.

You guys are also forgetting the apostolic phenomenon. The apostles did have authority over all churches, just as we do today. Their authority was not pastoral in nature; it was apostolic. The apostles still have authority today. IT just comes from their words on paper, not the words from the mouths.

 

This has been one of the most civil and informative debates I have ever been involved in here on the BB.

Lacy

 

Craig you make a very valid point about James. But I wonder about the implications.

If we assume you are correct about the preeminance of James:

1) Does that justify the one pastor system?
2) Is the apostolic authority of James an enigmatic, one-time phenomenon which just was for the early church?
3) Or does it justify the RC practice of setting a bishop or pope over all the churches.
4) How do your conclusions relate to the autonomy of the local assembly?

lacy

 

Only a small number of ecclesiologists believe that they can find a justification for the autonomy of the local assembly. Except for Baptist churches, almost all churches have a hierarchical system. There are obviously advantages to both, and the majority of Christian bodies have found a compromise between the two to be the most advantageous.

Some years ago I was studying practical ecclesiology and I spent a full day, beginning with an early breakfast on Monday morning and ending at 9:00 p.m., with a United Methodist minister. Except for some short breaks for food, he put in a 14 hour day, and even when we stopped for a few minutes to eat, we were discussing problems in his church and possible solutions.

During these 14 hours he related to me how he had been fired some years ago by his Bishop for concentrating too heavily upon the spiritual aspects of the Gospel and not enough upon the social aspects of the Gospel. When he was first hired by the Bishop to pastor that church, the church (not the building, the congregation) was in a state of decay and there were only a few dozen members. Over a period of several years, through aggressive preaching of the cross of Jesus Christ, he built the church back up to a membership of several hundred, strongly evangelical Christians.

His bishop found this to be absolutely intolerable, so his bishop fired him. He knew, however, that it was God’s will for him to remain as the pastor of that church, and he refused to leave. His bishop cut off his salary and hired another pastor to take over the church. But the church refused to allow the new pastor in their pulpit and allowed their pastor of several years to continue preaching and supported him directly from their own pockets, and he continued to pastor that church until it was God’s time for him to assume the pastorate of another church, which was not a Methodists church, but an interdenominational church whose senior pastor was of the Christian Missionary Alliance, as was one of the associate pastors. Another associate pastor was of the Assemblies of God. There was a third associate pastor the details of whom I do not recall, and the minister of whom I am writing was the fourth associate pastor, the pastor of the senior citizens of that church.


The inner-city church of which I was the senior pastor for six years was an autonomous church governed by a board of directors. I was also the president of the board, but I had to answer to the board. Most fortunately, however, all eight of us had been placed on that board by God and all eight of us knew that and answered to God himself.

 

Lacy,

I’m sorry. I guess I have been listening to too many politicians, and instead of directly answering your questions, I wrote a response that did not directly answer them. Therefore,

1. If you mean by this question, ‘Does it justify there being a Pope?’ my answer is that the Roman Catholic Church has some strong arguments from both the Bible and other literature which justify its position to a substantial extent.

2. The Bible does not explicitly answer that question, but it can be argued that Christ was the head of the entire Church, and upon His death, James became the head of the entire Church, thus establishing a precedent to be followed.

3. It can be argued as seen in the answer above to question #2 that “the RC practice of setting a bishop or pope over all the churches” can be justified.

4. Although God’s principles are immutable, I believe that He is nonetheless innovative. Unless God has set as a principle of a hierarchal system for the Church where one man is at the head, and I see no clear and undeniable proof in the Scriptures or elsewhere that He has, I do not find that the existence of some autonomous assemblies is necessarily contrary to the will of God.

Additional note:
Matt Black has made some important points from the Scriptures that must not be overlooked.