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

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?

Bob, who said anything about dispensationalism? His views certainly are more in the NCT than anything else. NCT is decidedly not CT. He didn’t get into Israel so maybe he is Progressive Disp.

Larry, that isn’t the only text.

That was the only one brought up. If you have more, put them forth and let’s have a look at them.

Since you are indeed arguing from silence

I haven’t argued at all, have I? In fact, I haven’t said anything about how elders should be selected or affirmed. I merely asked about your statement.

and the perpetuity of the elders is a responsibility of the leadership

Returning to the question, where does this come from in the Bible?

Matt 18:17
If he pays no attention to them, tell the church.

The church doesn’t vote on anything here. They are told something. What are they told? They are told that he is to be treated as an unbeliever.

Selective quoting, eh? Why not finish the verse? “If he does not hear even the church ….” That means the church has to speak as the church and the church has to be rejected. The elders cannot speak for them. Now, how does the church speak as one? That requires some means, doesn’t it?

Acts 6:3
Therefore, brothers, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and wisdom, whom we can appoint to this duty.

This might be the closest thing to voting, but if you notice, the Apostles are the ones who appoint them. At best, the brothers are a nominating entity for deacons.

So how does the church select them? There has to be some mechanism for figuring out who the church has selected, right? What is that mechanism?

1 Cor 5:3
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.

The decision was already made. They weren’t voting on what to do with the man. They had to carry out what the decision already was.

No, the decision hadn’t been made. In fact, that was exactly the cause for condemnation in v. 2. Again, you selectively quote Scripture rather than dealing with it all. Paul says “You should have put him out but you were arrogant.” How would they (the congregation) have done that apart from some means of speaking as a body?

2 Cor 1

I am not sure what you are referring to here.

Sorry, it is 2 Cor 2 where there was a punishment inflicted by the majority.

So the sum is that no voting exists in any of those texts.

Really? How does the congregation do things then? There is some means of the congregation making a corporate statement or decision. What is that?

The elders really are the leaders.

I agree, but that’s not the point here.

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 …

I know James K will disagree with me, but I have concluded that the N.T. gives some basics of church polity, but not all the detail that some would like to insist upon. For example, thinking that the roles of Timothy and Titus are reduplicated today by church elders. And, the N.T. doesn’t seem to make what is described a prescription for all times. If that is the case, why did the second century Christian church go pretty quickly to a monarchial bishop? The generation that followed the apostles didn’t act as if the N.T. prescribed the polity that some many, many, many years later what to think it does. So, hold the whatever church polity you want, just be humble about it.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

James how do you suppose the majority expressed their opinion/will in 2 Cor 2?

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

Let me finish with this one.

Your position is an argument from silence no better than the paedos.

I have yet to make an argument regarding the selection of elders, so it isn’t an argument from silence. It’s not an argument at all.

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.

I have no desire to see a vote. I don’t really see any other way for the church to speak as one, and you still haven’t offered one.

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.

The passage says nothing about the church acting, but rather about the church speaking (If he refuses to hear the church). How does the church make a statement to the person that can be refused to be heard by the guilty party? What is the mechanism for that? It can’t be merely ignoring him, because how would the person “refuse to hear” that? How does the congregation make that statement?

Acts 6 … This is a nomination.

And how is that nomination made known? How do the apostles identify the seven men selected by the congregation? How does the congregation make them known? You keep avoiding that issue.

3. I Cor 5 … Decision was already made. The church was to obey, not decide if they agreed.

Did you read v. 2? They should have done this without Paul, but they sinned by failing to take congregational action.

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.

That makes no sense. What did they do as a majority? They inflicted a punishment. What was that punishment? It seems they excluded him from the church by an action of the majority, and now they are being told to welcome him back in.

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.

No it doesn’t. It could be exactly what ACts 6 describes with the deacons where the congregation selects them and the elders lay hands on them in ordination and approval.

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

Who is suggesting this? Congregational polity doesn’t do this.

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

I don’t think that does justice to the passages at all. 1 Cor 5 is directed to the church for their failure to put him out, not the elders. In Matt 18, the church has to speak in a way that can be refused to be heard.

But even in your case you have the same problem you accuse congregationalists of. You say that elders could put a person forward for discipline and the congregation could reject that (i.e., disobey the elders). And that is exactly what would have been the case in 1 Cor 5 … the congregation there is the one who failed to act.

But what is strikingly absent in these passages is any reference to the elders doing these things. In fact, the elders appear neither in Matt 18 nor in 1 Cor 5. You have to read that into the passage to get them there. To quote you, you are so intent on finding elders doing this, that you include them in the passage even though they aren’t there.

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

I don’t think you have given any reasonable answer to the problems the text presents for you. You still haven’t given any passage where the elders select elders. You haven’t explained how the elders are absent in these passages that tell the congregation to do something.

And I think that leaves us where we always leave it … no answers that can tell us how the church does these things that the church is commanded to do.

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.