The Teaching Office

JamesK,
I am not able to give greater detail at this time, but compare the textual variants of v.23. I guess it depends on which text h you use, whether the church delivered the decree or not.

[Jay]

Just as an aside, if a church congregation called a pastor who decided to change the doctrinal parameters of that church, they would be well within their right (although they may be spiritually wrong) to terminate the pastor. Because the church itself, not the elders and deacons, is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:14-16).

At the risk of promoting myself, I wanted to circle back to this text for Ted. How would you interpret the 1 Timothy 3:14-16 passage?

I’d also be interested in why you haven’t merged with all the other local assemblies in your area or apologized for your own hypocrisy. Seems to me that the preacher ought to practice what he believes…especially if he’s blogging about it and trying to get others to agree with it here.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Jay]

At the risk of promoting myself, I wanted to circle back to this text for Ted. How would you interpret the 1 Timothy 3:14-16 passage?

I’d also be interested in why you haven’t merged with all the other local assemblies in your area or apologized for your own hypocrisy. Seems to me that the preacher ought to practice what he believes…especially if he’s blogging about it and trying to get others to agree with it here.

Jay - I know now that when you ask a question its to find something to disagree with so you can make another posting. If my reply to David above at comment # 68273 didn’t help you, then sorry, I’m not giving you more. You need to go submit to Jesus Christ in John 13:34-35.

Ted, put everything else aside and answer the question that Jay, myself and others ask you:

How is what you are doing/did in CT consistent with your teaching about one church/per town, appointing elders, etc?

From all appearances, you have a bit of credibility problem. I don’t expect you to answer this question because you have been ducking it for months.

[Ted Bigelow]

Hey David - in 1 Tim. 3:15, “is” is singular not plural - leading me to prefer the institution of the church over the people of the church. This is confirmed for me by the context as 1 Tim. 3 defines the two offices in the institutional church, elders, and deacons. Also, do a gut check - when do the people of church prevent the institution from slipping into a denial of 3:16? I’m sure there are some rare cases, but by far, the typical case is the institutional leaders who do that.

Ted,

I missed the earlier post. My apologies.

That being said, you’re practicing bad exegesis again here. You are taking your position, twisting 3:1-13 into it to make vv.14-16 say something that it does not, and then using that passage to prove your doctrine. Paul is clearly differentiating between the leader (Timothy) from the church in vv.14-16, and there is no exegetical reason to interpret the passage the way you do. Unless, of course, you don’t want to take the obvious interpretation.

Again, Calvin will suffice:

How thou oughtest to conduct thyself - By this mode of expression he commends the weight and dignity of the office; because pastors may be regarded as stewards, to whom God has committed the charge of governing his house. If any person has the superintendence of a large house, he labors night and day with earnest solicitude, that nothing may go wrong through his neglect, or ignorance, or carelessness. If only for men this is done, how much more should it be done for God?

In the house of God - There are good reasons why God bestows this name on his Church; for not only has he received us to be his children by the grace of adoption, but he also dwelleth in the midst of us.

The pillar and foundation of truth - No ordinary enhancement is derived from this appellation. Could it have been described in loftier language? Is anything more venerable, or more holy, than that everlasting truth which embraces both the glory of God and the salvation of men? Were all the praises of heathen philosophy, with which it has been adorned by its followers, collected into one heap, what is this in comparison of the dignity of this wisdom, which alone deserves to be called light and truth, and the instruction of life, and the way, and the kingdom of God? Now it is preserved on earth by the ministry of the Church alone. What a weight, therefore, rests on the pastors, who have been entrusted with the charge of so inestimable a treasure! With what impudent trifling do Papists argue from the words of Paul that all their absurdities ought to be held as oracles of God, because they are “the pillar of truth,” and therefore cannot err!

First, we ought to see why Paul adorns the Church with so magnificent a title. By holding out to pastors the greatness of the office, he undoubtedly intended to remind them with what fidelity, and industry, and reverence they ought to discharge it. How dreadful is the vengeance that awaits them, if, through their fault, that truth which is the image of the Divine glory, the light of the world, and the salvation of men, shall be allowed to fall! This consideration ought undoubtedly to lead pastors to tremble continually, not to deprive them of all energy, but to excite them to greater vigilance.

Hence we may easily conclude in what sense Paul uses these words. The reason why the Church is called the “pillar of truth” is, that she defends and spreads it by her agency. God does not himself come down from heaven to us, nor does he daily send angels to make known his truth; but he employs pastors, whom he has appointed for that purpose. To express it in a more homely manner, is not the Church the mother of all believers? Does she not regenerate them by the word of God, educate and nourish them through their whole life, strengthen, and bring them at length to absolute perfection? For the same reason, also, she is called “the pillar of truth;” because the office of administering doctrine, which God hath placed in her hands, is the only instrument of preserving the truth, that it may not perish from the remembrance of men.

Reiterating the problems with your position - either exegetical or practical - isn’t ‘finding something else to disagree with so I can make another posting’. It’s restating so that someone in this discussion can get an clear answer from you. Telling me I need to go ‘submit to Jesus’ (which, btw, would really mean that I should submit to you, not Christ) on this matter is also rude and sinful, and a violation of James 4:11 - “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers.”

Yes, I’m going after you on this website, and I’m doing it deliberately because I think you are here to spread confusion and dissention on what should be a very clear passage of Scripture. You continue to take multiple passages out of context and force them to support a position that is novel and schismatic. If you are offended because I have called you out on your false teaching, then either reply with Scripture, clarify where I’m wrong, or apologize. If you can’t do that, then follow Galatians 6:1. Don’t resort to name calling and slander. You aren’t the only person on this website with theological, pastoral, and seminary experience.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bauder wrote:

Ultimately, the congregation must define the church’s doctrinal parameters. This is exactly what happened in the local church business meeting at Jerusalem in Acts 15. In the face of a doctrinal and practical challenge, the entire congregation participated in drawing a doctrinal line (Acts 15:22-23). Nevertheless, the solution to the problem did not come from an uninstructed congregation, nor did the church’s leaders permit a simple pooling of uninformed prejudices. A right decision began with the apostles and elders, then included the congregation after the church had received teaching both from the apostle Peter (Acts 15:7-11) and the elder James (Acts 15:13-21). James, who was one of the pastors of the church, did more than to reflect upon abstruse biblical principles. He also applied those principles to the doctrinal problem in very direct ways, going so far as to state a solution for the church. All that was left was for the congregation to accept his solution.

  • It is very clear from Acts 15:22-23 that the entire congregation, including the leaders, were involved in the drafting and dispatching of the letter.
  • It is also very clear that the congregation was steered and shepherded by the elders

He continues:

In other words, James spoke to the issue in a way that ordinary church members did not and could not. He spoke with authority. He was not merely another voice within the church, but a teacher of the church. The congregation had a decision to make, but James had the right and duty to lead the congregation in reaching the correct decision. That is what pastoral authority looks like

  • Very well said. I have seen nothing from James and Ted to dispute these rather basic observations.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[GregH]

Ted, put everything else aside and answer the question that Jay, myself and others ask you:

How is what you are doing/did in CT consistent with your teaching about one church/per town, appointing elders, etc?

From all appearances, you have a bit of credibility problem. I don’t expect you to answer this question because you have been ducking it for months.

Greg, already answered in my last reply to you.

It is very clear from Acts 15:22-23 that the entire congregation, including the leaders, were involved in the drafting and dispatching of the letter.

Hi Tyler, the verb “chose” in Acts 15:22 - is it feminine singular or masculine plural?

[Ted Bigelow]

GregH wrote:

Ted, put everything else aside and answer the question that Jay, myself and others ask you:

How is what you are doing/did in CT consistent with your teaching about one church/per town, appointing elders, etc?

From all appearances, you have a bit of credibility problem. I don’t expect you to answer this question because you have been ducking it for months.

Greg, already answered in my last reply to you.

Actually Ted, you didn’t. I went back and looked, and then I went back and read again the link you provided to your blog article. It doesn’t answer the question. It never explains why you are not to be considered a hypocrite at best or a false teacher at worst, by the definition of your own blog, for helping to open another church in a city that already had churches in it within a convenient Sunday travel distance of yourself. The most precise quote I could find in the article was this one:

If you are thinking “that was then and now is now,” consider this. It’s not as if there weren’t “competing” churches in the cities of these NT churches. Such schismatic and heretical churches did form, thus earning Paul’s “ignore” commands, such as “have nothing to do with” (1 Tim. 4:7), and “turn away from” (Rom. 16:17). Such commands could not refer to ignoring and turning from people in one’s own church, for that would then disobey Christ’s command of love in John 13:34-35 and many other wonderful texts.

Rather, Paul commanded all the Christians in a particular locale to ignore and repudiate all those in the churches of these false teachers that didn’t submit to his apostolic deposit of faith (1 Cor. 14:37-38, 1 Tim. 6:21, 2 Tim. 2:16, 2:23-25, 4:3-4, Titus 1:14, 3:9). His “ignore” commands show that these dangerous teachers were not off teaching themselves in their own homes, but led rival churches, for they were publically teaching error, and their teaching was a very real near-by threat to the one church of that region.

So tell us all, finally Ted, should we identify you as a hypocrite or a false teacher? Because those appear to be only options you leave available in your article to describe yourself. Why shouldn’t we “ignore and repudiate” you for being schismatic to the one true church, whichever one that was, that was already operating in your region?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

The most precise quote I could find in the article was this one

Chip - that’s the quote you chose, but you missed the more apropos quotes. However, read the comments, especially 1.2.

“One true church?” Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?

[Ted Bigelow]

The most precise quote I could find in the article was this one

Chip - that’s the quote you chose, but you missed the more apropos quotes. However, read the comments, especially 1.2.

“One true church?” Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?

Fine Ted, you say I missed the better quotes. Of course, you don’t indicate why the quote I did point out shouldn’t be applied to you. But if there are better quotes, bring them here and answer the question. I went back and read the comments, as you requested. You still didn’t answer the question why we shouldn’t consider you schismatic, by your own definition, for opening your church when others already existed in your city. You mention in your responses to your own blog that you had tried near the time of that writing to join with two other churches in your area, so we know there are other faithful churches by your standards. Why shouldn’t we consider you at best a hypocrite and at worst a false teacher for not following the very advice you are promoting here? What gave you the biblical right to start your church instead of simply joining with the flock that was already present in your region? Why did you further divide the one true church of Christ in your region?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

[Ted Bigelow]

If you are offended because I have called you out on your false teaching, then either reply with Scripture, clarify where I’m wrong, or apologize.

Bring it on Jay. Clearly state my false teaching.

Bring it on…says the man who can’t or won’t (at this point I’m leaning more towards won’t) answer the multiple questions about why he divided the one true church in his town, and who won’t apologize for slandering Dr. Bauder and charging him with false teaching.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Ted Bigelow]

GregH wrote:

Ted, put everything else aside and answer the question that Jay, myself and others ask you:

How is what you are doing/did in CT consistent with your teaching about one church/per town, appointing elders, etc?

From all appearances, you have a bit of credibility problem. I don’t expect you to answer this question because you have been ducking it for months.

Greg, already answered in my last reply to you.

Um no, you have not answered the question. Not to me or anyone else. I am wondering why. Is it because you are scared to admit that you believe all the other churches in your town are apostate? I would remind everyone that not only does Ted probably think this but he also considers himself an apostle based on this post where he admits “it was sort of myself who “appointed” me.”

You asked:

Hi Tyler, the verb “chose” in Acts 15:22 - is it feminine singular or masculine plural?

Please just ask your question and stop being coy. What is your point?

Your position on ecclesiology is novel. I hope you would admit that. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make it wrong. Dispensationalists have endured similar charges from our Covenant brethren. We have done a whole lot of leg-work in historical theology and proven that ours is indeed not a very novel position; there is historical precedent for premillennial, dispensational distinctives. We have also done a whole lot of work in Biblical Theology to prove our point. Ryrie’s Basis of the Premillennial Faith, Walvoord’s Millennial Kingdom and McClain’s Greatness of the Kingdom come to mind. That being said, I ask the following:

  • Where is your historical theology? Show me anybody from church history who has ever supported your position. Surely you’re not the only one, are you?
  • Where is your Biblical Theology? March me through your NT ecclesiology and prove your point from somewhere other than Titus - prove it from the various epistle and Gospels throughout the whole NT.
  • Where is your Systematic Theology? Prove to me that your peculiar ecclesiology is supported by the entirety of the NT revelation, based on the sure foundation of BT.

Where is the heavy spade work to justify your position? Surely you suffered through hermeneutics class just like the rest of us did. Systematic Theology follows upon the heels of Biblical Theology. Where is yours? Moreover, where is historical precedent to support your claims? Let’s really dig into this issue.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.