The Teaching Office

I agree that the lead pastor of the local church should have oversight of teaching within the church. However, let’s not forget the priesthood of the believer. Every saint is a minister of the gospel. As such every saint has a teaching role within the body of Christ.

Tyler, with respect to K4T I agree with Greg and Chip’s assessments. My kids learned the material well and I was really impressed with the approach. To me AWANA seems like something closer to proof texts while K4T is exegetical and theological. IMHO it seems like kids need to learn theology just to deal with all the false things they will hear without the proper discernment and Bible knowledge to reject it. If however they know some basic theology then they have a stronger foundation. I believe K4T provides that. One thing that I found impressive is that it really emphasizes God’s sovereignty in salvation and in all things. If you want to hear the creator explain his methodology check this out:

http://ccggrockford.org/childrens-ministry-as-biblical-discipleship-bob…

So who are the pillar and ground of the truth? Or does that verse refer to the institution, in your opinion?

I read Dr. Bauder’s article and and understand it to mean that congregation holds today’s pastor accountable to preach the doctrine they, the congregation, received from the last generation of teachers among them. Presumably, this chain of doctrinal integrity would go all the way back to the apostles. Although I’m not advocating any trail of this or that here.

Of course, if there were a point of doctrine in the church confession that was erroneous, the elder(s), having met together and agreed on a correction, would be free to teach the congregation into the proper understanding, to the point that they would likely then vote to change the statement.

I actually see Ted’s articulation as closer to the Catholic mode than what Dr. Bauder espouses. If the church doctrinal statement is, in practice, the personal theology of the pastor, then every time they get a new pastor, he will, like a little pope, issue new doctrinal edicts in his sermons.

A confession jealously guarded by generation of members of the church who call pastors who conscientiously subscribe to said confession (which, of course, should be faithful to the doctrines of the apostles), guards better against an ad hoc popery.

One of the doctrines of the Apostles congregations really should hold their elders to is

The Lord’s slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness.

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. Look at the NT - who keeps the churches protected from the false teachers, but the leaders writings the letters telling the people what to do.

A confession jealously guarded by generation of members of the church who call pastors who conscientiously subscribe to said confession (which, of course, should be faithful to the doctrines of the apostles), guards better against an ad hoc popery.

Agreed, brother, but not very real. Sheep follow shepherds, not vice versa. Churches will follow a man they love, even to hell.

One of the doctrines of the Apostles congregations really should hold their elders to is

The Lord’s slave must not quarrel, but must be gentle to everyone, able to teach, and patient, instructing his opponents with gentleness.

Probably better to see that more as a practice than a doctrine. But frequently congregations rebel against good and faithful shepherds who confront them for sin. Look at Corinth, and Paul and Timothy. Look around you today.

If eldership leaves you feeling vulnerable and congregationalism feeling protected, you might want to brush up on 1 Tim. 5:19-20, and weave into your meditation on that verse two things - how does this pattern of accusation/protection fit within congregationalism (it doesn’t, imo), and how does it fit within eldership (it does, imo).
Blessings - T

[Ted Bigelow]

If you accept what Kevin teaches you accept defection from Christ. His teaching not-so-subtly shifts submission to the apostles and the ministry they received directly from Christ to the people of one’s church. Principally, it is no different than Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Hence, the authority in his religion defects from Jesus Christ’s apostles to his own church, from God, to man.

If you honestly believe this is what Dr. Bauder is saying, you are ignorant and misunderstanding him. Shame on you for misrepresenting him so.

“Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers” - I Timothy 5:1

[James K]

Tyler, I have addressed multiple times how seminaries as currently run are hindering the local church. When pastors are trained for years and are somehow still unable to train their own people as the NT says, then something is fundamentally wrong with the system. There is nothing wrong with perpetuating employment. It is only wrong if the system is wrong.

I don’t think that is the fault of the seminaries - it’s the fault of the pastors who are not training their own people. It seems to me that you are misdiagnosing the problem.

[Ted Bigelow] Agreed, brother, but not very real. Sheep follow shepherds, not vice versa. Churches will follow a man they love, even to hell.

Real enough that I’ve seen it happen. And you make my point for me about which party is more likely to perpetrate ad hoc popery.

Probably better to see that more as a practice than a doctrine. But frequently congregations rebel against good and faithful shepherds who confront them for sin. Look at Corinth, and Paul and Timothy. Look around you today.

You missed my point there, but that’s OK, it wasn’t primarily directed at you.

If eldership leaves you feeling vulnerable and congregationalism feeling protected, you might want to brush up on 1 Tim. 5:19-20, and weave into your meditation on that verse two things - how does this pattern of accusation/protection fit within congregationalism (it doesn’t, imo), and how does it fit within eldership (it does, imo).

My feelings. Well.

I’m very comfortable with a biblical, plural eldership. I am not comfortable with stripping the congregation of its responsibility and authority. I Tim 5:19-20 is completely compatible with a proper eldership that is held accountable by its congregation.

David, I am glad to see you agree with plural eldership. Can you tell me which area of responsibility and authority Ted is stripping away from the church?

[Jay]

James K wrote:

Tyler, I have addressed multiple times how seminaries as currently run are hindering the local church. When pastors are trained for years and are somehow still unable to train their own people as the NT says, then something is fundamentally wrong with the system. There is nothing wrong with perpetuating employment. It is only wrong if the system is wrong.

I don’t think that is the fault of the seminaries - it’s the fault of the pastors who are not training their own people. It seems to me that you are misdiagnosing the problem.

Pastors are also to train faithful men. This is part of their job. If they are not doing this, then they are failing. Many seminaries and their profs will argue that pastors are not equipped to train men. The pastors need to send the men off to seminary. So off goes Johnny to seminary. He spends years and thousands learning how to be a pastor from a text book. Johnny becomes pastor in a church. After all the time and money spent, Johnny is unequipped to train men and must also send them to seminary for the real training.

Of course not every seminary is like that, but if you think that is too harsh of an assessment, I have interacted with several profs from the big fundy seminaries to verify that reality.

[James K]

David, I am glad to see you agree with plural eldership. Can you tell me which area of responsibility and authority Ted is stripping away from the church?

Holding elders accountable to preach proper doctrine.

[Jay]

Ted Bigelow wrote:

If you accept what Kevin teaches you accept defection from Christ. His teaching not-so-subtly shifts submission to the apostles and the ministry they received directly from Christ to the people of one’s church. Principally, it is no different than Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Hence, the authority in his religion defects from Jesus Christ’s apostles to his own church, from God, to man.

If you honestly believe this is what Dr. Bauder is saying, you are ignorant and misunderstanding him. Shame on you for misrepresenting him so.

“Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers” - I Timothy 5:1

Kevin’s entire series has argued for a system that runs counter to NT theology. The Lord of the church has spoken. Kevin has offered an alternative. How is it anything but a defection?

[DavidO]

James K wrote:

David, I am glad to see you agree with plural eldership. Can you tell me which area of responsibility and authority Ted is stripping away from the church?

Holding elders accountable to preach proper doctrine.

I was hoping you could provide some scripture that would support the idea that the church has doctrinal oversight of the elders. This isn’t the president and congress. Which passage were you thinking of?

[James K] Kevin’s entire series has argued for a system that runs counter to NT theology. The Lord of the church has spoken. Kevin has offered an alternative. How is it anything but a defection?

First off, if the entire series is wrong, how come only two people on this site (you and Ted) see it? Ted, in particular, repeatedly argued for his own system with little acceptance and buy-in from the rest of us, and who also repeatedly ducks the hard questions he’s unable to answer? Furthermore, I don’t see Dr. Bauder advocating division or false doctrine. I don’t know the man, but from reading his stuff for over six years, I’d be very surprised if he did.

Secondly, if you’re going to call Bauder a heretic - which is what you’re doing when you say he is ‘running counter to NT theology’ - then I’m going to need to see your proof. Basing your arguments from one passage in Acts that Bauder hasn’t addressed isn’t sufficient. Even if Bauder ~IS~ wrong, you’re still responsible to entreat him as a father and try to gently convince him of his error, which is why I posted the verse I did. You don’t do it by accusing him of heresy on a discussion board. Have you tried to contact him directly?

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother”. -Matthew 18:15
“As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned”. -Titus 3:10-11
“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.”
- James 3:17

Jay, I’ve answered the questions; but being an SI guy you just don’t read them even after being entreated to do so time and again.
As for Kevin, his ecclesiology is staggeringly deficient. One single verse upends his posts on congregationalism. Don’t condemn us. If you must condemn anyone, take it out on Luke, the author of Acts 16:4.

Kevin is a dear and beloved brother in the Lord. But his teaching on this matter ensures defection from Christ, though he would vehemently disagree. Yet, as I pointed out above, being a congregationalist, he has no precept in Scripture that teaches his system. Not a one. Not only is that a defection from the most basic Bible study principles - especially for how we determine church practices - he is teaching others both his same shallow methodology and then commanding others to practice the fruit of it in their churches.

Who ever taught a doctrine as biblical without a clear precept, except someone with an unbiblical agenda? And when it comes to ducking questions, who gets their articles posted on a blog and then doesn’t reply to questions and criticisms?

Are we to be despised for calling attention to what Scripture does say?

So yes, defection, for Christ is the Lord of the Church. He clearly defines what a church is and how it functions in both precept and example in Holy Scripture.