The Teaching Office

Chip, the reverse isn’t true at all. Your argument is too near to our present time rather than NT time. At one time, there was THE doctrine/faith. Matters like head coverings, timing of the rapture, extent of the atonement, etc, were all addressed and expected obedience. Due to the corruption through time, and the various factions dividing over this and that, attempts have been made to stop the disease. Rather than address the core problem. Congregationalism is such an effort to fix the ills of the church today. Sadly, it only creates more problems.

To be blunt, the well meaning beliefs of so many are still very wrong and thus are outside the accepted circle of doctrine handed down. If people truly went back to scripture and not their seminary training, confessions, etc, the church would have a different outlook. You may disagree, but tell me, how much true unity is encouraged by every kind of church with every kind of teaching and every kind of confession.

I know you disagree, but there is not a single place in scripture where the church is given authority OVER the elders. Not a single place. Multiple times the elders are spoken of as being the authority though over the church. So which is it? Explicit texts or the white portions of the bible?

Hey Dan,

You seem to think that Congregationalism means that NOTHING ever should be done, led, or decided by leaders of the church, but ALWAYS by the congregation. That’s not what congregationalism teaches. And you seem to think that the congregation can’t listen to wise counsel before deciding on something. Again, not congregationalism.

Kindly provide any positive evidence I even suggested such a thing and I will gladly disown my words as mistaken. For unless I’ve missed something, yours is the first mention of ‘day-to-day’ authority in this thread. Is it possible you are projecting something on me which is beyond the scope of the thread’s argument - which is, “was the congregation the ultimate governing authority in the JC?”

Kevin’s post on the JC launched the thread - he made statements such as this:

“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.”

So hopefully in my criticism of Kevin’s poor and public handling of the sacred text, and in my interaction with other congregationalists like yourself, you’ll notice I include phrases like “final authority,” “ultimate human authority,” even as he did.

This led me to write such phrases to you as,

On the one hand there is the granting of approval by the congregation, an act of ratification, an expression of ultimate authority. Congregationalism, as a form of governance, would believe that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem were governmentally submitted to the congregation in Jerusalem.

To which you replied:

You don’t seem to understand congregationalism.

But if I do understand congregationalism, then could it be that you haven’t understood me?

[Ted Bigelow] But if I do understand congregationalism, then could it be that you haven’t understood me?

It would be much easier to understand you if you answered some of the questions put to you.

You mentioned:

(Dan) You seem to think that Congregationalism means that NOTHING ever should be done, led, or decided by leaders of the church, but ALWAYS by the congregation. That’s not what congregationalism teaches. And you seem to think that the congregation can’t listen to wise counsel before deciding on something. Again, not congregationalism.

(Ted) Kindly provide any positive evidence I even suggested such a thing and I will gladly disown my words as mistaken. For unless I’ve missed something, yours is the first mention of ‘day-to-day’ authority in this thread.

I found this a little up the page:

On the one hand there is the granting of approval by the congregation, an act of ratification, an expression of ultimate authority. Congregationalism, as a form of governance, would believe that the apostles and elders in Jerusalem were governmentally submitted to the congregation in Jerusalem. As Kevin Bauder says, it was a congregational business meeting. I for one do not see antagonism between the congregation and the leaders in Acts 15, or as being necessary to the congregational polity. It will happen though, if the leaders want to shepherd sinning people to repentance and some in the congregation don’t like that.

On the other hand there are the details in Luke’s account that go against such an observation. The phrase “with the whole church” is a prepositional phrase unrelated syntactically to the main verbs of Acts 15:22-23. Therefore, the “whole church” did not chose the men, nor send the letter. Thus they had no governmental role whatsoever. They are merely mentioned in passing.

If you believe that we’re making the apostles subservient to the congregation - a charge I believe that you’ve made several times now - then I can’t see how you can wiggle out of putting “ultimate authority” on the congregation. Furthermore, you’re contrasting your position with a straw man representation of congregationalism.

Ted, I’m feeling like we’ve moved from talking about what is right to whether you understand congregationalism. That’s probably my fault because I said, “You don’t understand Congr…”

We Congregationalists hold our elders to be our authorities. They act as under-shepherds and lead, rule, and authoritatively teach in our churches as the NT directs. If you understand that, then great.

Suppose I had a job that took me to Mongolia for a few years, to a town with no churches whatsoever. Suppose I were to witness to those around me and people heard the gospel and the Lord saved them. What should be our next step as a group of Christians? Surely we would want to organize into a local church. How would we go about getting our elders? Some of the group of new believers would certainly learn the Scriptures faster than others and show the character traits necessary for being an elder, but if we as a congregation do not have the authority to install them as our elders, then what do we do? Also, how do we draw up a doctrinal statement for the church? Do we wait until we get elders (however we get them), and then let those elders determine the doctrinal statement?

[Dan Miller]

Ted, I’m feeling like we’ve moved from talking about what is right to whether you understand congregationalism. That’s probably my fault because I said, “You don’t understand Congr…”

We Congregationalists hold our elders to be our authorities. They act as under-shepherds and lead, rule, and authoritatively teach in our churches as the NT directs. If you understand that, then great.

Thanks brother. Very godly of you.

When i started out commenting on Kevin’s post way back, I said a single verse of Scripture undoes all his assertions concerning the role of the congregation at the JC: Acts 16:4.

Consider, please, how that plays out in distinction from something you wrote a couple posts ago:

The Antioch church says, “Ok. Go.” They go… Jerusalem Council meets… Jerusalem elders recommend an answer… Jerusalem Congregation agrees… Letter sent… v.30-31: Antioch hears letter and rejoices (adopts Jerusalem decree). Nowhere does it say that the Antioch congregation was forced to adopt the Jerusalem Decree. If they viewed the letter as a false teaching they would have been right to have disregarded it.

By mentioning the letter from the JC as a “decree” you are right with Luke, who called the decisions of the JC “dogmata” (decrees) in Acts 16:4. Dogma are “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed​” (BAGD). We shouldn’t confuse them with proposals or mere propositions, things that are up for debate and vote, but which in themselves have no binding authority.

You see, the decisions of the JC were binding on congregations, which is why the end of Acts 16:4 is not to be translated “they delivered to them the decrees for them to consider” but rather “they delivered to them the decrees to keep.” The NIV translates the phrase, “for the people to obey.”

The issue comes down to religious authority, not only in the JC, but in our own beliefs as men who claim Jesus Christ as Lord and the writings of His chosen apostles as the authority of Christ Himself. Are Luke’s words in Acts 16:4, which define the authority behind the JC and make no mention of the congregation, compatible with Kevin’s congregational claims on Acts 15 or not? This is the matter of this thread.

He ignored this verse in his article, and does not hold himself accountable where he allows his public writings to be posted.

I believe James K (in his comment above) is completely correct when he writes that the Antioch church would have been in staggering sin had they even thought they were supposed to judge the decrees for themselves (i.e., as congregationalists), instead of, rejoicingly, obey them.

But our bigger point is that congregationalism, as a system of governance that claims the congregation is the ultimate authority in the church of Jesus Christ, is a faith that claims to be founded in Scripture but is actually opposed to it. My own addition is that because it is opposed to Scripture it produces a presumptuous faith and schismatic disobedience to Jesus Christ in both individuals and churches.

When i started out commenting on Kevin’s post way back, I said a single verse of Scripture undoes all his assertions concerning the role of the congregation at the JC: Acts 16:4.

Ted, I’ve already addressed 16:4 in an earlier post, so I’ll not revisit that rabbit trail again.

The real problem here isn’t even your teaching on polity or the constant maligning of other Christians. It’s your crazy hermeneutic that you have so helpfully described for us in your blog post on Precept and Example.

You mention that there must be both a precept and an example in order to make a passage binding on the church today:

But Jesus wasn’t done convincing John. To seal John’s faith He gave a precept,

“and blessed is he who does not take offense at Me” (Mat. 11:6).

Jesus’ scriptural examples, coupled with His own precept, gave John what he needed most – the convincing power to hold to a justified faith in Christ at the hour of death. That’s the power only Precept and Example gives.

Anything less – even just example or precept – can easily form a presumptuous faith built on insufficient evidence. Such faith crumbles in the day of distress, even as John’s was; other times it survives by will power. But in all cases it relies on less than God offers in His glorious Word – the cross-checking power of precept and example.

and

God provides all people equally with precept and example so that we can understand what He wants us to believe (doctrine), and do what He wants us to (duty). At the same time precept and example holds us back from adopting false beliefs and practices. Precept and example is the way Scripture teaches us as individuals and as churches what God’s revealed will is for life.

We are all so liable to misunderstand and misinterpret Scripture that we can grow frustrated and impatiently ask, “whose interpretation is right?”

But we also should know that no one stands above the Word of God. It is all from God and without error in the whole or in the parts. Our ability to understand is the problem. So God gave us all, equally, P&E to grant us a confirmatory method to know the right belief and practice, and to keep us from depending on men’s errant interpretations. If you can think, you can understand.

P&E is the public proof that the Bible is inspired and the domain of no man or church.

You can’t let 16:4 go because it’s the second part of the principle that you’re trying to teach here, and if it doesn’t mean what you say that it means, then your whole system of either polity OR your aberrant hermeneutic collapses, and either way, you are discredited. So it doesn’t matter how much ink we spill on that topic, because you continue to read and re-read your ideas into a text that does not say what you want it to. The ONLY way that someone can walk away from 16:4 with what you teach is because they’re already ‘bought into’ your flawed theology and interpretation.

Ted, you have no business trying to pastor a church with a hermeneutic like this. You will be held to a higher standard as a teacher (James 3:1), and you will be held guilty of adding to and taking away from what God says (Rev. 22:18-19). You are salting yourself with fire if you continue in this error.

Repent.