Today, many evangelicals assume that the Bible does not prescribe a normative standard for ecclesiastical politics Is this a natural and practical premise for a generation of church leaders who have been trained to value innovation, creativity, efficiency, and productivity above the model of success?On the other hand, there is also a variety of common theological and exegetic perspectives that support this position.
One of the objectives of this trial is to evaluate some of these perspectives; however, my main objective is to offer an inductive case of why the New Testament standard of ecclesiastical policy should be considered normative, that is, to connect churches through time and space.
- First.
- I will briefly discuss the most common arguments against the existence of a New Testament Church policy; Second.
- I will inductively examine the general lines of New Testament evidence regarding ecclesiastical policy; third.
- I will interact with other interpretations of the These two sessions will form most of the trial.
- Fourth.
- I will offer several reasons why the policy standards we see in the New Testament are not merely descriptive.
- But prescriptive.
A warning at first: my argument in favor of New Testament policy is explicitly congregational. This is because I understand that the New Testament gives prescriptive form to congregational politics. However, is the entire argument still being applied? with the exception of some details, of course, whether you see the local elders or a Presbyterian structure as a final support authority on matters of discipline and doctrine.
I. The argument against the prescriptive policy of the New Testament
The most common argument against New Testament policy is twofold: First, there is no consistent standard of Church policy in the New Testament. This means that it is impossible to argue that a singular structure is biblical “standard”. “Second, even if there is a coherent model of policy in the New Testament, the model can be simply descriptive and non-normative.
Taking just one example, evangelical theologian Millard Erickson first points to the lack of “teaching material?”Explicit about ecclesiastical policy, he then says: “When we re-examine the descriptive passages, we encounter a second problem: there is no model. “Erickson later commented, “While it was clear that there is a unique organizational model in the New Testament, this model would not necessarily be prescriptive for us today. Could this be the model I was, not the model it should be?. # 1
In response to this common statement, I will first examine the New Testament evidence for church governance, and then deal with some alternative interpretations of that evidence, before concluding with the reasons why we should consider this material as prescriptive.
Ⅱ. Mapping evidence on New Testament politics
I will examine the general lines of new Testament evidence on ecclesiastical policy in four parts:
1. The Apostles
First, the role of the apostles. Andrew F. Walls correctly perceives that because of Jesus’ promise that the Holy Ghost would truly guide you, the Apostles are the norm of doctrine and communion in the churches of the New Testament (Acts 2. 42, see 1 John 2. 19)?? In other words, because of their unique role as authorized witnesses of Christ and endowed with the Holy Spirit, the apostles’ teaching had to be accepted and obeyed by all Christians. Thus, for example, Paul might say to the Thessalonians, “If someone does not obey our word given by this epistle, notice it; nor associated with him, will he be ashamed?(2 Thessalonians 3:14). However, given this universal regulator,
The New Testament has less to say than would be expected of the Apostles as church leaders. They are the ones who validated the doctrine, the providers of Christ’s authentic tradition: apostolic delegates visited congregations that reflected new submissions to the church (Acts 8:14ss; 11. 22ss). However, the twelve did not name the seven [Acts 6]; the crucial Jerusalem Council consisted of a large number of elders and apostles (Acts 15. 6; cf. 12. 22): and two apostles served among the prophets and teachers?Church of Antioch (Acts 13:1). Government was a separate gift (1 Corinthians 12:28), usually exercised by local elders: the Apostles were, under their commission, mobile. Nor were they prominent in the administration of the sacraments (see 1 Corinthians 1:14). # 3
So, despite their role as a standard of doctrine and fraternity for the entire New Testament church, have the Apostles been clearly open to the exercise of other types of authority by other individuals?-13 and 2 Corinthians 2. 6).
A final aspect of the role of the apostles that is relevant to our discussion is the unrepeatable and non-transferable nature of the apostolic office. Again Walls is useful:
“In the nature of things, the office cannot be repeated or transmitted: could anything more be transmitted than the underlying historical experiences to those who have never known the Incarnate Lord or received the resurrection?While the New Testament shows that the Apostles claim that a local ministry is supported, there is no indication of the particular transmission of the apostolic function to another part of that ministry.
In short: The Apostles’ teaching of everything related to faith and practice was the norm for the New Testament church. This remains today through the inspired scriptures they and their associates wrote. As Walls writes: “Were the apostolic witnesses kept in the permanence of apostolic work and in what has become normative for future times, their form written in the New Testament?. 5 Secondly, did the apostles not tend to govern the church directly, but as a place for other exercises and structures of authority?where others Third, the New Testament does not present the apostolate as a permanent office, but limited to those who were authorized eyewitnesses to jesus’ resurrection.
2. Local Church Leaders
The second category to consider is local ecclesiastical leadership. Leaders of local New Testament churches are called by a variety of names: Guide No. 6, Elder No. 7, Bishop No. 8 and Pastor No. 9. That the following designations may lack a title, do we also read the ones that are in you?(Greek: hoi proistamenoi; Romans 12. 8; 1 Thessalonians 5. 12) and those who have the gift of?Administration? (Greek: kuberneseis; 1 Corinthians 12:28), where both seem to indicate a leadership role. Against those who see “irreconcilable diversity” – 10 in new Testament evidence, I agree that the following points demonstrate consistency and clarity in the direction of New Testament Churches.
First, it is commonly accepted that the Presbyterian, Bishop, and Pastor terms are all interchangeable in the New Testament, so it would be a distortion of textual evidence to read any distinction or function in these different terms 13.
Second, Paul systematically points to a number of elders in each church he has established and has asked his Apostolic Delegate Titus to do the same. In Acts 14. 23, we read, “And, promoting in them, in every church, the choice of the elders, after praying fasting, entrusted them to the Lord whom they had believed in. “At least during his so-called first missionary journey, Paul was a constant practice of appointing several leaders who were called elders in each local church.
And in Titus 1. 5, we read: “That is why I leave you in Crete, that you may put in order the rest, as well as, in each city, to constitute elders, as I have prescribed you. “Paul’s practice of appointing elders in each church was not simply a personal preference, but something he also ordered his assistants to do.
Third, note that in Titus 1. 5 Paul refers to the elders as part of the?Order, in which the local churches will be placed. Paul seems to have in mind here an established norm or form that every local church must comply with.
Fourth, through the New Testament, we find a coherent model of ancient plurals in a single local church. For example, Paul called the elders of the Church of Ephesus to go to him (Acts 20:17) and James asks a sick believer to call the elders of the church to pray for him and agirlo with oil (James 5. 14) – 14.
Fifth, Paul’s references to the qualifications of the elders without further explanation in Timothy 3 and Titus 1 seem to assume that the first function was already known to Tite and Timothy, and the churches as the leadership position provided for this purpose. understanding of the elderly as an established and recognized function among New Testament churches. # 15
Sixth, descriptions of leaders outside the presbyterian matrix/bishop/pastor do not necessarily imply the existence of other different ecclesiastical positions or structures. The terms Hegoumenos and proistamai are functional descriptions that could easily be applied to both informal and earlier ecclesiastical leaders. In fact, Paul uses proismmai to describe the work of the elders in 1 Timothy 5. 17.
Seventh, silence about the elders does not prove their absence. Some scholars insist very much that Paul does not mention the elders in Romans or 1 and 2 Corinthians, stating that this is proof that the elders were not uniformly present evenly in the “Pauline churches”. But Paul also does not mention the elders in his letter to the Ephesians, and we still know from Acts 20: 17-38 that Ephesus’ congregation did have a plurality of leaders called “elders. “
Eighth, consider the role of the elders. Gathering the work involved in the skills of the elderly (such as being able to teach; 1 Timothy 3. 2; cf 1. 9), another Pauline teaching such as 1 Timothy 5. 17-25, Paul’s commission to the elders of Ephesus in Acts 20: 18-35 and Peter’s commission to his former comrades at 1Pedro 5. 1-4, we can see that the main functions of the elders were to teach the sound doctrine , direct the affairs of the church and exercise spiritual supervision over those entrusted to them.
This brief study suggests that New Testament churches were constantly run by a number of men recognized as elderly and should teach sound doctrine, take public affairs out of the church, and exercise spiritual oversight. Church leaders seem to agree rather than contradict this consistent pattern.
3. Deaconos and their predecessors
Thirdly, more briefly, we turn to the deaconos and their predecessors. In Portuguese, deacon is simply a transliteration of the Greek word deacons. The term and its relative often appear throughout the New Testament, but only in two contexts, deaconos refer ambiguously. to an ecclesiastical function: Philippians 1. 1 and 1 Timothy 3. 8-13 -16. In Timothy 3. 8, after listing the qualifications of the elders, Paul says, “Similarly, as with deaconos, are they necessary to be respectable, in a word, are you not willing to drink much wine?Then list the rest of the deaconos grades. And in Philippians 1. 1, Paul greets “all the Saints in Jesus Christ, including the bishops and deaconos who live in Philips. “
Although the New Testament’s testimony to deaconos is small, some conclusions about its role can be drawn with caution.
First, what, deacon, is a recognized profession in the church, along with the elders/bishops, which seems to legitimize the inference of the two passages. Paul’s special mention of the deaconos together with the bishops in Philippians 1. 1 would make little sense unless the deaconos, together with the bishops, held a publicly recognized position.
Subsequently, Paul’s list of requirements for deaconos in 1 Timothy 3. 8-13, without further explanation, seems to indicate that deaconos were an established function in the church.
Second, although the New Testament provides few explicit instructions on the role of deaconos, it can be inferred from their position that their primary role is to serve the church in physical matters. Moreover, unlike the elderly (see 1 Timothy 3. 2), deaconos are although they are certainly not prohibited from teaching, this indicates that it is not part of their professional responsibilities, and although the elders are repeatedly described as rulers of the church (1 Timothy 5. 7) and as pastors of the church (Acts 20. 28, 1 Peter 5. 2), deaconos apparently do not have this responsibility for spiritual oversight , which is indicated by the absence of any mention of his role as a deacon and by more subtle differences between his qualifications and those of the elderly.
Finally, what does Acts 6 teach about the origin of the role of deacals?While some understand the events of Acts 6 as founders of the role of deaconos, it seems preferable to see the Seven listed in Acts 6 as the predecessors of the deaconos, “proto-deaconos”. In this reading, at least part of what Luke does in his account in Acts is to explain the origins of what has become the role of deaconos in the 19 apostolic churches.
4. Congregation Authority on Inclusion and Exclusion
A final aspect of New Testament policy that will be essential to our discussion is the question of authority over who is included and excluded from the church.
Just as politics deals with the structures that govern and legitimize the exercise of authority, there is no more fundamental question about ecclesiastical politics than who ultimately decides who belongs and who does not belong to the Church. To design the local church, the New Testament indicates that there must be a clear and definitive separation between the church and the world (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 5. 9-13). Thus, in several places, the local assemblies of Christians are instructed to exclude from their communion every person whose life decisively contradicts his claim to have faith in Christ. # 20
Then the question naturally arises: who decides who is inside and who is outside?In accordance with the desire to be inductive and descriptive as a possibility up to this point, I will briefly examine the relevant passages in the New Testament before determining whether these passages, as well as the rest of what we have seen in New Testament policy standards, should work normatively for today’s church.
Second, I will argue that the New Testament is modeling what we call “congregationalism. ” But even if you don’t agree with this reading, you still have to prove who in the church can do what. Specifically, who has done it. the power to include and exclude from the church?
In Matthew 16, when Peter confesses that Jesus is Christ, Jesus responds in part:
I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; Everything you connect on earth will have been connected to the heavens; and whatever you disconnect from the earth will be disconnected from the heavens (Matthew 16:18-19).
Jonathan Leeman recently argued that this endless dispute over the words of Jesus is an institutional status of the Church that formalizes the church’s existence on earth, establishes its authority, describes its fundamental rights and privileges, and describes what is essential to it when it belongs to it. Then Leeman examines the dense preparation of mixed metaphors in this passage, the?Application? From the authority of the keys in Matthew 18. 15-20 and the relationship of these two passages with Matthew 28. 18-20. Leeman proposes that the state of Jesus says that:
“At this moment I guarantee my Apostolic Church, what is eschatological and that it is the heavenly meeting, the authority of the act as guardians and witnesses of my kingdom on earth. I authorize this royal and priestly body, wherever it manifests between two or three witnesses formally gathered in my name, to affirm and identify publicly with me and with all the people who profess my name with confidence and follow me as Lord; supervise their discipleship by teaching them everything I have ordained; exclude all fallen and disobedient teachers; and make more disciples, identifying these new believers with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit through baptism. ?# 22
In short, Leeman argues that in Matthew 16. 18-19, Jesus grants each local church authority at the ambassadorial level to represent representatively what belongs to and does not belong to the kingdom of heaven. The church exercises its authority by gathering professing believers, supervising its disciples and excluding false teachers.
But who exercises this authority in The Churches of the New Testament?It seems that in the New Testament it is consistent for the local congregation as a whole to exercise this authority. For example, in Matthew 18:17, Jesus told those who face a wandering brother to tell the church; and if you also refuse to listen to the Church, do you consider him a Gentile and a publican?Jesus’ teaching here seems to indicate that the local assembly as a whole has the final judicial authority over its members. struggles with the sinner who professes to repent and it is the church that must adopt the exclusion that Jesus demands if the person does not repent. # 24
Or, in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul teaches in the church of Corinth how to treat the man who sleeps with his father’s wife, saying, “In the name of the Lord Jesus, gather and my spirit, with the power of Jesus, our Lord, given to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved on the Sabbath [Jesus]?(1 Corinthians 5: 4-5). Here it seems that even with an apostle giving instruction, it was the assembly as a whole that had to exclude a member with an outrageous sin. in its entirety.
This interpretation is corroborated by Paul’s comment in 2 Corinthians 2. 6 that “the punishment of the majority is sufficient” for the church to receive the now repentant individual. The fact that the punishment is inflicted by the majority indicates that the congregation as a whole deliberately acted to exclude this person from its fraternity. Moreover, Paul’s commandment that the church restores man confirms that the whole congregation has the power not only to exclude members who do not repent, but to include those who repent and maintain credible professions.
Of course, these stories do not provide complete procedural details or answer any questions we may have regarding the discipline of each early church; however, they seem to point to a consistent pattern in which the local congregation as a whole exercised its authority over who is included or excluded from the church.
III. Responding to alternative interpretations
As this panoramic study of New Testament policy standards has been established, I now move on to evaluating three alternative interpretations of the evidence that militates against the normative reading of New Testament policy standards.
1. Irreconcilable diversity
First, I will briefly evaluate the argument that the New Testament shows “irreconcilable diversity. “.
Ernst Kosemann’s opinion can be considered representative of many New Testament scholars when he says:
No romantic postulate, even if involved in the mantle of the history of salvation, can be allowed to weaken the moderate observation that a historian is unable to speak of an unwavering unity of New Testament ecclesiology. of our situation in microcosmos?differences, difficulties, contradictions, at best an ancient ecumenical confederation without an ecumenical council.
Millard Erickson’s view mentioned above is somewhat similar, albeit more preliminary. Erickson identifies the exercise as seemingly “monarchical” of apostolic authority, the “essential role” of the elders, and the elements of the authority of the congregation considered in the New Testament as if they were all somehow in tension with each other.
Several things can be said in response to such claims. Generally, especially among those influenced by FC Baur’s reconstruction of the early Church, interpreters will encounter difficulties and contradictions where a more patient reader of the text would not find them. Some scholars will overlook the fact that Paul gives detailed instructions on the exercise of charismatic gifts in 1 Corinthians, the mention of which does not contain legitimate ecclesiastical functions; on the other hand, the epistles and pastoral acts contain no mention of the regular appearance of charismatic gifts in the daily life of local congregations, and a very official feature, called the “hierarchical” structure. The ministry, namely, the duties of elder and deacon. But silence in local church services is not conclusive evidence of its absence, as we have. Isn’t nature also charismatic? The cult of the Corinthian Church is necessarily opposed to an official and recognized structure. ture of ecclesiastical leadership.
It seems that some interpretations have built complete images of the churches represented in Corinth, in pastoral processes and in acts that go beyond the evidence, and then found that these portraits contradicted each other, in such cases we must re-examine what the texts tell us and do not tell us.
Turning to Erickson’s arguments: Even if he clings in any way to the text, Erickson’s assertions about the absence of a unitary standard indicate that he considers that the discrete elements of New Testament politics are mutually exclusive. 28 Erickson offers no discussion as to why these elements cannot coexist in a unified policy in a local church. He simply claims that they are incompatible.
Erickson is right to recognize that the apostles, for example, exercised an authority that goes beyond the local church and therefore seems “monarchical. “However, this only contradicts local authority if one believes that the role of the apostles is to remain in the church. If, on the other hand, we recognize that the role of the apostles is limited to those who were authorized eyewitnesses of the resurrection (as Walls argues above), then we meet the elders and the congregation as the two main And there are many senses in which the elders and the congregation can exercise some kind of interdependent and interconnected authority; In other words, we don’t have to choose between the leadership of the elders and the kind of authority of the congregation that we described above.
If this is the case, the New Testament presents a place of authority in the local church that complements itself rather than contradicts itself.
2. The issue of development
Another alternative reading worth considering is the claim that the development of the New Testament church structure provides all the rules of relative policy. Since an in-depth chronological analysis of new Testament evidence of policy models would take us much further, simply provide some preliminary commentary on the topic of development.
First, it seems clear in the New Testament that “Apostle” is not a perpetually continuous function throughout the life of the church, but rather related to the first generation after Christ. Certainly, the Apostles continued to function as the norm for teaching. fraternity in all churches at all times through New Testament-inspired writings. But it is an authority exercised in absentia, not by living men who have the role and gifts of an apostle.
Therefore, the authority that the Apostles exercise over the various churches is related to their role and is not a standard for exercising similar authority in today’s church. Would this exclude any call for a specific apostolic activity to justify, for example, a “bishop?”. that has authority over several congregations. However, this is precisely the call Peter Toon makes when he writes:
When these words [Titus 1. 5-7] were written in the first century, all churches recognized that visiting apostles, evangelists, or representatives of the Apostles had authority over certain matters – the local elders/bishops and the local congregation of Christ’s flock. # 29
However, unless Toon is prepared to assimilate the Apostles into bishops, there is no basis to use the former as justification for the latter.
Since the call to apostolic authority is excluded only as a political basis, the New Testament demonstrates a coherent model of leadership through a plurality of elders in the context of the authority of the congregation on the inclusion and exclusion of assembly. We understand the unique and irreplaceable aspect of apostolic ministry, the diversity of New Testament political models begins to seem a little less “irreconcilable”.
Secondly, if we take the historical assertions of the New Testament to the letter, which we have every reason to do so, then no legitimate argument can be made of what?Officers inside the church were a later development. Paul’s first missionary journey can be dated approximately until 49 AD. 30 When Luke says that Paul and Barnabas have appointed elders in every church. Paul’s mention of “bishops and deaconos?”in Philippians 1. 1, it seems to indicate the existence of two offices in a way that harmonizes organically with the discussion of qualifications in 1 Timothy 3, and this happens in a letter that must be dated around 60 A. D. , which is also in the lifetime of at least some apostles, and again, a conservative dating of pastoral epistles a few years after Philippians. # 31
What this means is that the long period of time that is supposed to have elapsed between the ”charismatic” beginning of the church and the subsequent crystallization of a more orderly ecclesiastical structure is greatly exaggerated. Certainly there seems to be a development, for example, of the Seven identified in Acts 6 for the role of deaconos, however, the lack of development that exists there leads to a stable policy that includes ex-leaders, deaconos at service and the congregation with ultimate responsibility for the credibility of the profession of faith of its members.
That said, reaching this image requires careful synthesis because all these elements are rarely mentioned in the course of a New Testament book and are never described in a complete and systematic manner; However, given our research on the above evidence, in the absence of convincing evidence, there is no reason to assume that, as the apostolic age erodes, churches have developed different trajectories.
In short, while there is a clear ecclesiological development in the New Testament, it seems reasonable to discern something resembly of a “final form. “The ecclesiology of the New Testament, especially as seen in pastoral epistles, which explicitly address the healthy aspects of the preservation of the Gospel and the Church in the post-apostolic age.
3. An ekklesia, several congregations?
Another argument developed against reading that we have summarized above is based on the claim that the New Testament sometimes uses the word ekklesia to denote a “Church. “composed of several different congregations. For example, as D writes. A. Carson:
One of the most striking things about its use in the New Testament is that it appears in the plural when referring to the different assemblies (?Churches?) In the region or province (for example, “Churches of Judea ?, Galatians 1. 22) in the singular refers to Christian assemblies in any city. In cities such as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome, Christians multiplied so quickly that they could not meet in assembly; and even if they could have found a big enough place, they were not politicians to meet like this and attract the attention of their listeners. However, despite the fact that there are many?Assemblies? or “congregations”, say, in Corinth or Jerusalem, Paul writes to the church of Colossus and the procedures with the church of Jerusalem, not “the churches”?colossus and Jerusalem.
Based on this line of interpretation, Carson otherwise offered the following warning to those who consider the constant pattern of a plurality of elders in local churches to be normative:
A plurality of elders, if not necessary, seems to have been common and perhaps the norm. On the other hand, alone? (ekklesia in singular) is used for the congregation of all believers in a city, never “churches”; we read churches of Galatia, but from the church of Antioch or Jerusalem. So is it possible, though uncertain, for a single major to exercise authority over the group of a house?a group of houses that, in some cases, were part of the city church as a whole. # 35
In short, Carson suggests that several congregations constituted a municipal church and if we speculate more deeply that each of the former oversees a church at home, then we cannot be justified in asserting that plural rectory is a valid standard that churches must follow. have used the same textual argument to justify forms of Presbyterian or Episcopal politics and, more recently, multi-site churches.
However, the New Testament does not seem to support Carson’s assertion that in some cities Christians multiplied so quickly that they could not meet in assembly, and even if they had been able to find a big enough place, it was rude to find it. attract the attention of your listeners ?. Specifically, three lines of textual evidence argue against this.
First, Acts repeatedly declares that the whole church in Jerusalem should be gathered together. 36 Immediately, after the three thousand souls were added to the church (Acts 2:41), we read: “All who believed were together and had everything in common [?]. Did they persevere unanimously in the temple every day, break bread from house to house, and eat with joy and simplicity of heart?(Acts 2. 44, 46). This clearly indicates that they were together and had everything in common also gathered in the temple.
Again, Acts 4. 4 says to “increase the number of men to almost five thousand. “Although we believe that the whole church is based on the number of men, Acts 5. 12 makes it clear that they all met in one place 😕
Again, in Acts 6. 2, did the Apostles call the community of disciples?To solve the problem of food distribution. Clearly, Solomon’s portico was large enough to house a gathering of several thousand disciples, which is quite easy to imagine given its generous dimensions. And the text says that in fact the disciples have all gathered together.
Secondly, although the church of Antioch consisted of “a large number [?] A great multitude” (Acts 11. 21, 26), Paul and Barnabas were able, in two separate situations, to unite the whole church (Acts 14. 27, 15. 30).
Third, although Carson does not mention Corinth, it is generally stated that the church of Corinth consisted of several small churches in houses. 37 However, when addressing the entire “Church of God in Corinth”, Paul refers to his Assembly as a total of at least seven times. 38 For example, does Paul tell them to follow the question of church discipline?(1 Corinthians 5. 4). In the first five of these examples, Paul refers to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and in the last two he refers to meeting for mutual building through chants and instructions.
In 1 Corinthians 11:18, Paul explicitly says, “For first, I am informed that there are divisions among you when you gather in the church. “Here, Paul seems to be worried that they will come together on a constituent path because they are a church. Given the meaning of ekklesia (“assembly”), this would hardly seem opaque to Greek-speaking Christians. For Paul, it is from this regular and collective assembly that his identity as the Lord’s Church in Corinth derives.
Later, does Paul order the Corinthians to put something aside on the first day of the week?(1 Corinthians 16: 2). It seems more likely to be a reference to your business meeting on the first day than an individual and private fundraising event. This would also seem in favor of understanding Paul’s other references to his “meetings. “In the form of regular meetings and weekly meetings rather than extraordinary events. And this would be another reference to the ecclesiastical assembly as a whole, albeit implicitly. In taking stock, it seems preferable to understand that all of Paul’s references to the Church of Corinth come together as a whole, indicating not only that the total number of believers in Corinth could be gathered in one place, but actually did so every week. # 40
This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that, in his epistle to the Romans, which he probably wrote from Corinth, Paul refers to “Gayo, my host, and the whole church” (Romans 16:23).
If the multiple New Testament congregations were sometimes a church, then the question would arise from my earlier argument that local congregations had final authority over membership and discipline issues. If a church consisted of several congregations, then who had authority over whom. ? Although he argued that the New Testament does not support this claim, and indeed the evidence of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Corinth indicate that groups called “Churches”?They met regularly in a unified way.
Instead of speculating on what was certainly the case, we’d better stick to what the New Testament clearly states is the case.
Releer: In the first part, I highlighted the main argument against the normative reading of the ecclesiastical policy of the New Testament. In the second part, I tried to outline the structures of the local church seen in the New Testament and concluded that a consistent pattern can be discerned. Thirdly, in this session I have offered an answer to three main arguments against a coherent new Testament policy model: (1) the assertion that the text demonstrates an irreconcilable diversity of policy models, (2)) the argument that development in the structure of the church in the New Testament makes all political norms relative; and (3) the claim that a church in a city consisted of several congregations. This third argument, of course, would relativize two of the main political norms I have held that are consistent throughout the New Testament: plural leadership of elders and congregational authority over membership and discipline.
IV The standard it should be, and not just the standard that
However, even if there was a model of politics in the New Testament, what about Erickson’s assertion that such a model was simply?The model it was, not the model it should be?How do you decide whether all the different passages are descriptive or prescriptive?How we respond to this question will determine whether we understand respect for biblical political norms as a matter of obedience or indifference. Therefore, we turn to the question of whether these standards and instructions are prescriptive for today’s church.
The first thing to note is that we should be too slow to reject what is, in fact, a coherent political standard, or more precisely, a number of discrete elements that fit into a coherent structure, if only in general terms. Those who argue that New Testament policy standards are not mandatory also argue that they are not consistent with each other. Much less?If there are any, they see a consistent and unified standard, and they still argue that this is not valid for today.
If we face a consistent standard, we must think twice before rejecting it because of the “lack of regulatory material”. It is clear in the New Testament that in general, apostolic practices have served as a precedent. valid for all churches (see 1 Corinthians 11:16). At first, there is no reason why this cannot extend to issues of leadership and ecclesiastical structure.
This apostolic example was to function normatively as something that historical Baptists were more willing to embrace than contemporaries. William Williams, Founding Professor of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is worth mentioning:
Should our Lord’s disciples regard this organization as a obligatory model for them to adopt, or has he left the form of the church’s optional policy to their people?[?] If one and all of these forms are not equally appropriate to serve the primary purposes for which churches are divinely instituted, then there is a better way than another; and if there is one more suitable than the other, the Savior would certainly not leave the task of discovering [?] to the fallible human wisdom. We must believe, given the important support of his organization’s way of achieving, successfully or not, the ultimate goals of his institution, which were under the leadership of the Holy Ghost in this matter, as were the proclamation of the doctrinal principles of Christianity; so that the policy instituted by them must be seen as the expression of divine wisdom on this subject.
Williams continues to put an end to it
“The real question, then, seems to be this: we are obliged to adopt this policy in which divine wisdom has indicated to be the best adopted to promote the purposes of the ecclesiastical organization, or perhaps we feel the freedom to change or replace it. With someone else, according to our views of suitability or convenience?Such an issue cannot be discussed. It is not claimed that there was a system, logically proposed and systematically implemented. But even the doctrines of the gospel are not in a good way Therefore, we are left to a diligent search for the scriptures and to compare the scriptures with the scriptures, to gather incidental reference instructions, and distribute them to the doctrines of the scriptures, to organize them into a systematic and harmonious body. doctrines, as well as with the great principles of Church governance.
Later, I would say that these passages describing the ecclesiastical policy of the New Testament have in themselves a normative force. Let’s take the plural leadership of the elderly. This appears to be a constant pattern observed throughout the New Testament, derived from the apostle Paul’s usual practice (Acts 14:23), a practice Paul ordered his apostolic delegates to follow (Titus 1. 5). Order? In which, according to Paul, each church must be organized (Title 1. 5). Finally, the way the qualifications of the elders come to us (1 Timothy 3: 1-7), without any explanation or indication that their role is limited to a specific situation in the church. Comparing all this, it seems to be indicated that our churches should do what the Church of Timothy in Ephesus should do: find men who fit the qualifications and, as the Lord provides them, designate them for the role of elder.
With regard to the authority of the congregation on the inclusion and exclusion of the church, I would argue in the same way: the passages establishing that authority regulate the exercise of that same authority through any other group or individual, so they establish a normative and valid standard that churches must follow.
Countless Baptists and congregations have observed – perhaps anarchically but, I would say, perceptively – that when Jesus said, “the church said” in Matthew 18. 17, he did not say, “Say to the rectory?Or the bishop? Or “Pope. ” In other words, Jesus established the local congregation as a whole as a final judicial and deliberative authority over who should be included and excluded from the congregation.
This teaching was also given by Jesus’ disciples even before the church existed; I would say that it actually confirms its universal relevance and its application to all local churches. the immoral man (1 Corinthians 5:4-5) apparently followed and confirmed the lasting authority of Jesus’ teaching on this subject.
This model of congregational authority turns out to be a valid rule most clearly in light of Jesus’ assurance of authority for the local congregation in the famous “Keys to the Kingdom” passage. (Matthew 16: 18-19). If Jonathan Leeman is correct in arguing that the passage emphasizes the institutional character of the local church, then the issue of authority arises substantially. According to Leeman’s reading, Jesus gives the local church on earth the power to representatively declare who belongs and who does not belong to the kingdom of heaven through “attachment and liberation. ” professed believers and their fraternity. # 46
If the local church has this representativeness and authority as ambassador, of course the question arises as to who is allowed to exercise that authority, when authority is involved, the question of authorization is inevitable, and in this case, because authority is about whom. is included and excluded from the church, we are immediately involved in policy issues.
It does not speak directly to the leadership structure of the church itself, in terms of what the leaders are called or how many they should be. But that speaks volumes about politics, in the sense that if Jesus authorized this exercise of authority, it can only be exercised by those he is authorized to do so. # 47 So if the local congregation as a whole is allowed to exercise its authority with the keys to the kingdom. , then no extra-congregational authority, such as a bishop or a presbytery, is guaranteed to exercise it. No subgroup within the congregation, such as the elders, is authorized to make the final decision on these matters. The authority representing the kingdom of heaven requires heavenly authorization. And the authorization given by Jesus guarantees that this authority is exercised only by the local congregation as a whole. # 48 If someone wants to argue that the elders, the rectory, or the bishop were also able to wield the keys, then the onus is on showing in the text where that permission occurs, or even when illustrated in the life of the early church. Where, for example, do we see in the New Testament a collegiate church of elders or a bishop unilaterally excommunicating an individual from his church membership in the way that Paul commands the Corinthian church to do (1 Corinthians 5: 4)? ?
Whether or not you agree that the congregation has final authority, you cannot escape the question of who can do what in the church. Where and how is the church allowed to act to hold its members and elders accountable?
As far as the authority of the elders is concerned, the question is: how does the New Testament allow them?They have a separate authority as much as church members are obliged to obey them (Hebrews 13:17), implying an authority that is not in the hands of all members of the church. Clearly, they’re allowed?Supervision? (e. g. Acts 20; 1Pedro 5) and?Teaching? (for example, Acts 20; 1 Timothy 3).
In short, there are many reasons why we should consider as normative the structure of the church skeleton we have acquired from the New Testament. First, even if we find one? An ecclesiastical policy pattern that necessarily involves careful synthesis of various textual data, there seems to be a coherent discernible policy model that can be acquired from the New Testament. So, we have to think twice before just rejecting.
Secondly, we have good theological and textual reasons for considering apostolic practice in this area as a valid precedent for the institution.
Third, in various ways, the specific texts supporting this policy seem to indicate that these rules and requirements have a lasting regulatory force.
Fourth, the exercise of authority for heaven requires heavenly authorization, so perhaps more explicitly in terms of adherence and discipline, it would seem that as long as ecclesiastical politics touches on these issues, which inevitably does, it must be for the divine assurance given in the scriptures.
Fifth, because church leaders have un guaranteed specific authority for each member of the congregation, this exercise of authorized spiritual oversight in the local church also requires divine permission.
For all these reasons, we should see the New Testament policy standard not only as a standard it was, but as a standard it should be. And should we take our churches slowly and gradually if necessary?according to the teaching of the scriptures in this area.
1 Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd ed. , Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 1094-5.
2 Andrew F. Walls, “Apostle”, in New Bible Dictionary, editor I. Howard Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer and D. J. Wiseman (3rd edition; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), 58.
3 Ibid. , 59
4 Ibid. , 59-60.
5 Ibid. , 60.
6 gr. hegoumenos; Hey 13: 7, 17, 24
7 Gk. Greater than 11:30, 14:12, 15: 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, 16: 4, 20:17, 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17, 19; Tit 1: 5; Stg 5:14; 1 Stone 5: 1, 5.
8 Gk. episkopos; Acts 20:28; Fp 1: 1, 1 Tim. 3: 1-2; Titus 1: 7; Cf. 1 Peter 5: 2.
9 gr. poimen; Ephesians 4:11; See Acts 20:28, 1 Pet 5: 2
10? Irreconcilable diversity is a phrase by Markus Bockmuehl. See Markus Bockmuehl, “Is there a Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament?In the Bible of the Doctrine and Theology of the Scriptures: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics,” ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 35, and my response to Bockmuehl’s point of view in the third section.
11 Most of the following discussions find an argument with Wayne Grudem (although not directly dependent on), Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (2 ed. ; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 912-920, according to Wayne Grudem, “Why not follow the uniform New Testament model of the plural of the elders to rule our churches?” Documents of the Evangelical Theological Society. Portland: Theological Research Exchange Network, 1993.
12 See, for example, D. A. Carson ,? Church, Authority in Him,?In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (2nd ed. ; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 249. See Mark Dever’s upcoming speech on? The Doctrine of the Church, in A Theology for the Church, ed. Daniel L. Akin (Nashville: B
Some, such as R. Alastair Campbell in his book Elders: Seniority within Earliest Christianity
14 For more examples of the plurality of elders in the local church, see Dever,?The Doctrine of the Church,?803-804.
15 For a justification for considering the rectory as an office, not just a function, see Benjamin L. Merkle, The Elder and Overseer: One Office in the Early Church (New York: Peter Lang, 2003).
16 If Romans 16. 1 indicates that Febe held the position of deacon is not important for our current discussion, although this raises the question of whether or not the New Testament authorizes the deacons. For more arguments in favor of Romans 16. 1 referring to the role of deacon, see Thomas R. Schreiner, Novels (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 787-788. For more arguments in favor of understanding 1 Timothy 3. 11 as a reference to the deacon, and therefore to the legitimacy of women in this office today, see Andreas JKStenberger, “Hermeneutics and Exegetic Challenges in the Interpretation of Pastoral Epistles,?”in Entrusted with the Gospel: Paul’s theology in pastoral epistles, ed. Andreas JKStenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: second
17 See Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions about elders and deaconos (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 238-243.
18 For more information, see Benjamin L. Merkle, “Biblical Qualifications and The Responsibilities of Deaconos”. 9Marks Journal, 7. 2 (2010): 8-11 [online]. Available in: http://www. 9marks. org/journal/biblical-qualifications-and-responsabilities-deacons.
19 For a brief defence of the traditional understanding of Acts 6 as the beginning of the function of deacon, a position which I kindly doubt, see John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Church: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), p. . 192. Mark Dever in?Does the doctrine of the Church also treat the Seven as deacons, though he recognizes that the deacon only responds?(799-800). Finally, while Anthony Thiselton does not dispute the relationship of the Seven recounted in Acts 6 with the role of deacon, he presents an interesting proposal to understand the term diakonein to refer in the broadest sense to an administrative responsibility exercised on behalf of another, based This proposal seems to be complementary to the traditional accent of deacons as servants of the physical needs of the Church. See Anthony Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 493. -494.
20 See, for example, Matthew 18: 15-20, 1 Corinthians 5: 1-13, 2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15, and Titus 3: 10-11.
21 Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God? S Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 173 Chapter 4 of Leeman’s book contains a detailed exegesis of Matthew 16. 18-19 and other relevant Matthew texts that support this central claim. For a more succinctly updated discussion of these Leeman passages, see “The Political Church: Like Christ?” S The keys to the kingdom constitute the local church as a political assembly ,? (PhD Diss. , University of Wales, 2013), Chapter 6.
22 Ibid. , 194-195
While Leeman’s institutional language may go further than that of previous congregational authors, many historical authors of congregation have understood this: the keys of the kingdom?In Matthew 16:18-19 in the same way as Leeman. John Cotton, The Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and Power There, according to the Word of God (London: Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye, 1644; representative of Boston: SK Whipple and Co. , 1852).
24 Many commentators of various ecclesiastical traditions have recognized this fundamental point. See, for example, Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 468-9; and D. A. Carson? Matthew, in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 403.
25? Irreconcilable diversity is a phrase by Bockmuehl. See Bockmuehl, “Is there a Doctrine of the Church in the New Testament?35.
26 Ernst Kosemann, “Unity and Multiplicity in the Doctrine of the New Testament of the Church,” in Today’s New Testament Questions, trad. W. J. Montague. (New Testament Library; London, SCM: 1969), 256-257, cited in Bockmuehl, 32.
27 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1094
28 Ibid. For Erickson’s full discussion of the church government, see 1080-1097.
29 Peter Toon, “Episcopalianism”, ? In Who Leads the Church ?, ed. Steven B. Cowan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 27-28.
30 About Craig L. Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Hechos through Revelation (Nashville: B
31 For a recent and ingenious argument in favour of the Pauline authority of pastoral epistles, see Terry L. Wilder?Pseudonimate, the New Testament and pastoral epistles? Entrusted to the Gospel: Paul’s Theology in Pastoral Epistles, ed. Andreas JK Stenberger and Terry L. Wilder (Nashville: B
32 Nor is the doctrine of the Trinity. Someone wonders why evangelicals who would support the doctrine of the Trinity would denigrating a similar systematic synthesis in another area of Christian doctrines.
33 Much more must be said to protect against the application of a kind of “hermeneutic trajectory”. in the field of eclectic politics. For now, I will simply argue that development (diversity) within the apostolic age seems to lead to coherent politics (unity), without the other way around.
34 D. A. Carson, “Evangelicals, Ecumenism and the Church?” In Evangelical Affirmations, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 364-365.
35 D. A. Carson,? Church, Authority in Him,?In the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter Elwell (2 ed. ; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 250.
36 I am indebted to Greg Gilbert for drawing my attention to the following references. Watch his blog post, “Looking for the Bible on the Problem of Multiple Sites,” http://www. 9marks. org/blog/looking-Bible-multi-site edition.
37 See, for example, Jerome Murphy O?Connor? Churches in the houses and the Eucharist, in Christianity in Corinth: The search for the Pauline Church, ed. Edward Adams and David G. Horrell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 133-134.
38 1 Corinthians 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26
39 Against Murphy O’Connor, who said, “Then would it seem that a meeting of ” the whole church?”(Romans 16:23; 1 Corinthians 14. 23) was the exception rather than the rule; Would that be embarrassing?See See Murphy O? Connor? House Churches and the Eucharist, 133.
40 Against the argument which I have made here, it is commonly accepted that there is not a place large enough to accommodate the whole number of believers in Corinth to gather together in one place. The first problem with this argument is that it is based on pure guesswork, because we do not have enough data on the size of the Corinthian church. Secondly, this argument refuses to deal with clearer archaeological evidence that established the houses in Corinth, which would have been in terms of?Not many,who were of high social rank (1 Corinthians 1:26), could easily have accommodated several hundred people. See, for example, Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches, ed. Don S. Browning and Ian S. Evison, Family, Religion and Culture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997).
For an application of this research to this question of whether or not the New Testament provides a precedent for multi-site churches, see Grant Gaines,?Were the churches in The Houses of the New Testament multi-site?(Not available on paper, online http://grantgaines. files. wordpress. com/2010/05/were-new-testament-house-church-multi-site. pdf).
41 I am indebted to Bruce Winter for emphasizing the importance of this text for the current debate on personal correspondence. For arguments in favor of the Corinthian origin of the Romans, see Schreiner, Romans, 4. Schreiner also sees Paul’s reference to Gayo as an indicator that Gayo organized a full meeting (see ibid. , 808).
42 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1095
43 Indeed, as I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, I do not know a single author who sees a coherent model of politics in the New Testament who still argues that it is not prescriptive.
44 Erickson, Christian Theology, 1094.
45 William Williams, Apostolical Church Polity (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1874), reissued in Mark Dever, ed. , Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life (Washington, DC: Nine Marks Ministries, 2001), 543-546.
46 See Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God?S Love, chapter 4.
This is one of the reasons why, it seems to me, historical Congregationalists like the men who wrote the Apollogetic narrative were right to demand some kind of guarantee, guidelines, standards, [or] examples?For any type of exercise of ecclesiastical authority. See Alan P. F. Sell, Saints: Visible, Orderly
48 For a discussion on authority and authorization, see Leeman, The Church, and the astonishing offensive of God’s love, chap. 3; ? Political Church, chap. 2.
Translation: Matheus Fernandes. Crítica: Yago Martins. © 2016 Faithful Ministério. All rights reserved. Website: MinisterioFiel. com. br Original: The Ecclesiastical Governance Model of the New Testament
Authorizations: You are authorized and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format, provided that the author, his ministry and translator are no longer no longer modified and not used for commercial purposes.