Candidate chosen to replace John Piper as Pastor of Preaching and Vision

Looks like an orderly transition plan

Jason Meyer's curriculum vitae (saw it someplace in the above documentation) is impressive.

Jonathan, I am going to side with NT principles on this. Elders choose elders. The membership do not vote. I know that is a baptist sacred cow, but that thing is fat and ugly with open sores.

Yes, a congregational vote is part of the foundation of Baptist Polity. It's one of many reasons we're Baptists and not deep water Presbyterians.

I understand your thinking Rob. However, I specifically said NT polity. Can you show me where the early church voted on anything, much less elders? If not, maybe stop elevating it to biblical polity. By the way, the alternative to congregational vote isn't only Presbyterianism.

James and Joel, Thanks for the verses. However, I don't see anything in those verses about elders appointing elders.

Titus 1 is the closest, but that isn't elders appointing elders. In the most favorable reading to you, you have one apostolically appointed representative appointing elders in other churches (not his own). If I recall correctly, neither of you would favor a single elder with the authority to appoint things by himself. And I doubt that either of you believe that there are apostolically appointed representatives circulating in churches today. So on that account, the Titus passage would not in your favor.

1 Thessalonians doesn't even address the appointing of elders, so any attempt to use that to argue for a self-perpetuating office of elder is clearly outside the text.

Yes, elder should train future elders, lead the church, etc. No one would dispute that. But that's a long way from saying that the NT teaches that elders should select elders.

So again I ask, do you have any passages in support of the idea that elder select elders?

As for church voting, I won't rehash that long discussion here, but simply point you to the places in the NT where the congregation makes a decision ... or fails to make a decision as the case may be (Matt 18, Acts 6, 1 Cor 5, 2 Cor 1). To me, it is very hard to construct a polity that ignores these seemingly clear commands to congregations to do something together, and it is hard to imagine a means by which a congregation does something as a congregation without some form of voting. But again, this is an old issue, well hashed out and IMO thoroughly answered both here at SI and in reams of literature.

Good question Richard. Lots were cast in the Old Covenant time. There is nothing to state that he should have done that when he did. In fact, Christ said to wait in Jerusalem for the promise of the Father. He didn't say to replace Judas. Regardless, casting lots would be more biblical than voting.

James,

How exactly does Meyer's book rule out covenant theology? I think it holds problems for dispensationalism more than the other way around. I really enjoyed the book and thought it was great in detailing what exactly Paul taught was new in the new covenant -- which Meyer claims is now. Are you saying he is advocating NCT or something?

Suffice it to say that Baptist polity and congregational government has been around for a very long time and has survived without much difficulty the types of arguments you are putting forth here. I have read them (many times ... Ted tried valiantly) and have yet to find them convincing.

Two final things:

1. When you say "elders are leaders" you are not addressing congregational polity. I agree with you.

2. You have to find some mechanism by which the congregation makes a statement in accord with the passages above. That is typically by some sort of vote.

But this is off topic for this thread ...

Larry, we have gone back and forth for years on issues, but you are above this line of reasoning. Your position is an argument from silence no better than the paedos. You have concluded that the only way for a church to speak as one, they must have voted. That is just bad. You want to see the vote so bad, you are willing to say such things hoping no one catches it I suppose.

1. Matt 18

I didn't need to quote the whole passage, nothing changes. The elders tell/inform the church of the disciplined person. The church then acts with one accord toward that brother. There is no need to vote on anything. The church must follow the leaders. In your scenario, the leaders could put him forth to be disciplined and the church vote not to. That is...insanity.

2. Acts 6

Again, this is the closest you could come to a vote, but even then, the church's vote was not the deciding factor. The elders still had to actually appoint who they chose. This is a nomination. Even so, another argument from silence. This is not how we baptists determine theology. Leave that to the covenantists.

3. I Cor 5

You need to reread this passage, especially verse 3.

"For though I am absent in body but present in spirit, I have already decided about the one who has done this thing as though I were present."

Decision was already made. The church was to obey, not decide if they agreed.

4. 2 Cor 2

Of course the punishment was by the majority. However, that the church acted in obedience to Paul says nothing about a vote.

It is the responsibility of elders to not lay hands on anyone hastily. This would require that they are the ones who choose the next elders.

Red herring unless maybe your point was that bad theology can survive.

Yes I am. Those who subject the leaders to the whims of the majority lack any NT support.

I agree. That statement is obedience to what the elders have decided, exactly what Matt 18 and I Cor 5 are about.

I am done unless you can provide some text to support your views.

I already explained Greg. They expressed their will by their obedience to what Paul commanded.

A majority expressed their will that the offender should be welcomed back, while a minority expressed their will that he should not be. The will of the majority became the decision of the body.