The Teaching Office

[James K] 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?

Well let’s back up. Dr. Bauder has made a case for congregational election of officers. I need not remake it. Furthermore, I Cor 5/2 Cor 2 give example of congregations being (partly) responsible for discipline. I’m being simple here for lack of time, but it follows that an elder teaching heterodoxy would be disciplined by the church. Ted’s excission of the congregational participation in the process referred to in I Tim 5:19,20 is unwarranted, given the implication of the above and other passages (Matt 18, for instance).

And frankly, his tone towards the sheep approaches condescension.

[Ted Bigelow] 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.

To redirect, Dr. Bauder spent much of one article demonstrating that the congregation participated (Acts 15) along with the elders in determining doctrine. Yes, they were led by the elders, but they gave approval as well. That Acts 16:4 refers to that in a sort of partial way upends nothing.

Of course Jesus is Lord and King of the Church. We are discussing a proper interpretation of the doctrine of the Apostles, not inventing new doctrine to supplant it. If that’s how we looked at it we’d turn your words around and call you the defector. Note who has been reduced to name calling.

You post here. But you’re not a Sharper Iron guy because why? So you can paste those here with whom you disagree with a handy epithet. How becoming.

Ted’s excission of the congregational participation in the process referred to in I Tim 5:19,20 is unwarranted, given the implication of the above and other passages

David - show where I taught excission. Otherwise it’s just standard practice for SI - when you don’t like what someone says, just accuse the person and deflect from the real issue, which is there is no precept for Bauder’s congregationalism in Scripture, and his examples of it are refuted most easily. All the rest is noise.

And you are welcome to visit Grace Church and talk to “the sheep.” We’re real people.

[Ted Bigelow] David - show where I taught excission.

[Ted Bigelow]… 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).

I made no slash and dash attack. I made a brief but coherent argument.

I did charactarize your tone in referring to the capabilities of sheep, and your comments remain on display in the posts above as exhibits. None need visit CT to investigate.

Speaking for myself, I will give Ted Bigelow an ounce of credibility on the day he credibly explains how he does not break his own rules (one church/one town) with his church in CT. This is a question he has ducked probably 20 times. Until then, I am not really inclined to pay much attention.

David - it’s an important point critical to Bauder’s thesis, that “they [the congregation] gave approval as well.” Now you need to show why Acts 15:22 establishes governmental “approval” as opposed to just “going in along with.” Remember, you are establishing church practice here, and the church belongs to Christ, so mere inference won’t do.

You also need to show why Acts 16:4 refers to only “partial” authority (other than that it fits your view of Acts 15:22). What in the words of Acts 16:4 teaches partial authority? Think about it, friend. If the ultimate authority for establishing doctrine in the church were the congregation (as Bauder claims), and yet Acts 16:4 has Paul and Silas telling the churches of Derbe and Lystra that the decisions were made by the apostles and elders, then Paul and Silas were not telling the truth in who ultimately gave human authority to the council. Morever, they were being being unsubmissive to the ultimate authority of the churches of Derbe and Lystra​ as well since they did not reinforce the beliefs of those congregations that the ultimate human authority by which doctrine is established is by the congregation, not it’s leaders.

Further, Paul and Silas delivered (gk: paradosis) to the churches the Council’s decisions (gk: dogmata). If those decisions rested on the authority of the church in Jerusalem, why then were they binding on two other autonomous churches: “for them to observe”? Does your church receive decisions from other churches as binding?

Yet, the Galatian churches weren’t free to vote on whether or not to accept those decisions for they came with an authority higher than those churches. To accept congregationalism one must believe the churches of Galatia, and all other churches, were free to accept or reject the “burdens” of Acts 15:29 based on congregational vote. Yet this directly violates the mandated obedience to the contents of the letter, a subjugating of Paul and Silas’ authority under their own, and a rejection of Luke’s words which required compliance at the end of Acts 16:4.

And if you are still getting caught up in the phrase “the whole church” in Acts 15:22, then consider this. Do you think that the people of the church in Jerusalem who believed in salvation-by-circumcision went along with the apostles and elders? If not, were they still a part of “the whole church” in Acts 15:22?

Or, we could believe Acts 16:4 as it is written.

[GregH]

Speaking for myself, I will give Ted Bigelow an ounce of credibility on the day he credibly explains how he does not break his own rules (one church/one town) with his church in CT. This is a question he has ducked probably 20 times. Until then, I am not really inclined to pay much attention.

Greg, really? Kindly read Location, Location, Location, and the comments too. Just don’t expect me to try to gain your credibility when I explain my self fully somewhere else and you don’t read and interact with it.

BTW, what book(s) are you teaching at church?

[Ted Bigelow] And if you are still getting caught up in the phrase “the whole church” in Acts 15:22, then consider this. Do you think that the people of the church in Jerusalem who believed in salvation-by-circumcision went along with the apostles and elders? If not, were they still a part of “the whole church” in Acts 15:22?

Or, we could believe Acts 16:4 as it is written.

Ted,

Do we still have apostles to consult with? Is it possible (or even reasonable) for someone in Italy (much less America) to consult with a now-defunct church in Jerusalem in regards to local church polity? Is it even desirable? Does God give us any kind of hierarchy other than the one outlined in the Pastorals?

You’re basing an awful lot of eccleisology on one verse. And it’s also one verse out of a book of transition that is not normative for NT believers.

I tried to reason Scripture with you, David. I tried. When you are ready to discuss the actual passages in Scripture, and not simply make general assertions, I’ll rejoin you. Otherwise I’m out.

[DavidO]

You post here. But you’re not a Sharper Iron guy because why? So you can paste those here with whom you disagree with a handy epithet. How becoming.

Again, David, the point is not to slander and run (I am almost convinced you won’t do otherwise), but to examine the argument and be a good Berean.

Kevin’s ecclesiology is defective, easily disproven, and leads away from Christ. Ought I not show why, and where?

As to SI, join the 25,000 plus and read. Not enuf bona-fides? I think I have several other articles here as well.

Here are some of the hard questions Ted ducks, from the previous thread:

I think I would argue that the reiteration / command to raise up elders in the NT church is actually foreshadowed in the OT - in Deuteronomy, to be exact. So if Moses had to divest himself of leadership responsibilities to ensure that the civil society of Israel functioned, even down to groups of fifties and tens (Deuteronomy 1:15), then I’m not sure why you seem to think that we only need one set of elders per city for our religious institutions. Can you expand a little more?

To which Ted said that it’s taught in Titus 1:5. So I pushed for more detail:

Follow-up question for you, since you want to talk Titus - Titus 1:5 refers to the elders in Crete, which is both an island of approx. 3,220 square miles, according to Wikipedia, and it’s own distinct country. If you are arguing (as you seem to) that there should only be one set of elders for the Roman province of Crete, then should there be only one set of elders for the United States? If not, where do you draw the line that a new set of elders becomes necessary for the nation? Also, if there are elders in Crete, then why did Paul and others appoint elders in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Philippi, and Antioch?

To which Ted never answered. We did, however, begin a discussion on the novelty of his position, which others commented on as well:

If this is true, then why are you the only person on SI that sees it?

The Bible doesn’t give us ideas and patterns that are new to the interpreter over 2000 years later - it’s clear and understandable, so long as someone is a Believer and has the HS dwelling within. Yet I’ve never heard of this position outside of your teaching. Why is that?

Rob Fall - interesting. I think Jay’s question is more like who has supported your view since the NT times. From my reading of Baptist history, no one.

TylerR - I believe Ted’s problem is even worse than that. From my reading in ecclesiology, and a perusal of historical theology texts, I am not aware of anybody in history who has supported Ted’s position. If somebody has, I honestly want to know.

and at this point, I brought other passages into play:

Yes, that is exactly my point. I’ve been through both Bible college and Seminary, and I’ve never heard of this position. Furthermore, the NT authors repeatedly refer “to the churches”:

Galatians 1:2 - and all the brothers who are with me, To the churches of Galatia:

1 Corinthians 16:1 - Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are todo.

1 Corinthians 7:17 - Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 - For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,

Galatians 1:22 - And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ.

2 Corinthians 8:1 - We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia,

1 Corinthians 11:16 - If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

2 Corinthians 8:24 - So give proof before the churches of your love and of our boasting about you to these men.

1 Corinthians 14:34 - the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.

For me, there are two issues with this. First is that this is a new(er) position in the development of theology in over 2000 years. It’s so new, actually, that more than a few of us - all of which have theological training - have never heard of it, with the exception of Watchman Nee. Which is it’s own kettle of fish :).

Ted then tried this argument out on Mark Snoeberger of DBTS, who wasn’t impressed either.

Ted did pop back on, and someone noted this unspoken assumption of his (comment is excerpted):

Any additional body of believers in close proximity is a threat to the unity of the original body.

Which then merited another follow-up question to Ted that is still unanswered:

I don’t see this espoused anywhere in Scripture.

Jesus clearly desires that all of our believers be and act as one (John 17). Paul argues against unnecessary schisms in I Corinthians 1-3. Yet the presence of believers in close to proximity to another church is somehow a threat? Doesn’t that violate the teaching ofEphesians 4:1-5?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

So now we’re doing the dance again. And I stand by my original questions to Ted…but I’m not buying into it, and frankly am beginning to consider him a schismatic.

[Ted Bigelow] Again, David, the point is not to slander and run (I am almost convinced you won’t do otherwise)

And please kindly show where I slander?

[Jay]

James K wrote:

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, friend, we both know that truth is not determined by consensus. I posted 2 verses that disprove Kevin’s point. His point is a major pillar in his system. I don’t think Kevin is maliciously trying to undermine the church. I give him the benefit of the doubt in his intentions, but his doctrine is still full of error. Since it is contrary to the NT, it is divisive. Someone really is wrong about this.

I am not basing my arguments on something Bauder hasn’t addressed. Go back and read his articles where he engages Acts 15. His latest article is just a rewording of previous posts. Acts 15 ALONE disproves his point, but in case there was any doubt, Luke was explicit in Acts 16:4.

I fail to see how Matt 18 applies to internet discussions of those not in the same church. I don’t think Bauder is self-condemned, just ignorant on this matter. Maybe be more clear with your James reference.

[DavidO]

James K wrote:

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?

Well let’s back up. Dr. Bauder has made a case for congregational election of officers. I need not remake it. Furthermore, I Cor 5/2 Cor 2 give example of congregations being (partly) responsible for discipline. I’m being simple here for lack of time, but it follows that an elder teaching heterodoxy would be disciplined by the church. Ted’s excission of the congregational participation in the process referred to in I Tim 5:19,20 is unwarranted, given the implication of the above and other passages (Matt 18, for instance).

And frankly, his tone towards the sheep approaches condescension.

The closest thing one could argue is that deacons are nominated by the assembly. Even in Acts 6, the apostles had to confirm them. NEVER is an elder chosen by the congregation in the NT by example or precept. Kevin managed to turn Acts 6 upside down and then beat up some poor passages until they cried out for mercy regarding the choosing of elders. If you agree with that case, then you have a lower threshold for what constitutes good exegesis on this point than I do.

Regarding tone, I won’t bother playing that game. The sensibilities of one are not those of others. Truth isn’t beholden to the ability of the hearers to hear.

[DavidO]

Ted Bigelow wrote:

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.

To redirect, Dr. Bauder spent much of one article demonstrating that the congregation participated (Acts 15) along with the elders in determining doctrine. Yes, they were led by the elders, but they gave approval as well. That Acts 16:4 refers to that in a sort of partial way upends nothing.

Of course Jesus is Lord and King of the Church. We are discussing a proper interpretation of the doctrine of the Apostles, not inventing new doctrine to supplant it. If that’s how we looked at it we’d turn your words around and call you the defector. Note who has been reduced to name calling.

You post here. But you’re not a Sharper Iron guy because why? So you can paste those here with whom you disagree with a handy epithet. How becoming.

David, sadly this is the whole point. Show me where in Acts 15 that the church participated in any kind of decision making or gave their approval. This is like talking to presbos about infant baptism. You believe it is there because you want it to be there because you have a system that is perpetuated on it being there.

I don’t have time to find the exact quote, and I suppose Ted can correct me if I am mistaken, but when he was asked how he came to be recognized as a legitimate elder at Grace Church he could offer no other support than that he deemed himself worthy of that mantle. He cannot allow for the congregation to exercise such authority, for he denies that they have any right to do so, but in the method which he derives from his own unique interpretation of TItus 1, the only Biblical means by which a man may become an elder in a church is that he is appointed by one who has authority to do so. It would seem that Ted’s view of elder-appointment would require either a landmark type of church succession or an unbroken episcopacy from the time of the apostles.