Elders Rule! But Congregations Decide
“They understand ‘ruling’ to mean that elders make decisions for the congregation, and they understand ‘obeying’ to mean that the congregation knuckles under to those elder-made decisions. The question is whether this construal really does justice to the evidence.”
Elders Rule! But Congregations Decide
- 93 views
[GregH]I was thinking the same thing. If Ted understands the Scriptures to teach one church per city, then why does he not simply dissolve his church and tell everyone to join a local assembly which existed prior to his. He could then travel the world shutting down schismatic churches. What a ministry opportunity!I think the proof in the pudding is whether Ted is following his own teaching? He is in a city with lots of other churches. I am sure his church was not the first one either. Why is that? What is he doing to merge his church with others?
Jay wrote,
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? I’m not buying into what you’re saying here.
Hi Jay, hope you are well and richly blessed,
Yes, the principle is confirmed in that it is taught by both precept and example in the NT.
Precept - Titus 1:5
Example: Ephesus: Acts 20:17; Jerusalem: Acts 11:22, 30, Acts 15:4; Philippi: Phil. 1:1, 4:15.
Blessings!
Ted,
Titus 1:5 doesn’t prove your point either. On the one hand, grammatically, it is not necessary that there have only been one church at the time of the writing. If there were three churches in every city, you would still “appoint elders in every city.” Furthermore, there may have only been one church with one set of elders in each city at that time, but there is no prohibition against adding more as time went on and the church continued to grow.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
it is not necessary that there have only been one church at the time of the writing
Indeed, and i would argue the context of the letter shows there to be a similar situation to today - multiple churches in every city, with Titus responsible to merge all of them into one church, under one set of elders. Notice the greek preposition kata in Titus 1:5 - a distributive use of kata.
If there were three churches in every city, you would still “appoint elders in every city.”
This goes against the context, brother. The present churches in every city are led by the “many” rebellious leaders - men who will be unsubmissive to Titus and who, in fact, are unsaved (Titus 1:10-16). For Titus to appoint elders in those churches would be reckless. Such men were heretics who would rebel against Titus’ ministry of merging, and who he would reject from the Christian faith (Titus 3:10-11).
If you read the article I linked you to then you would have seen an early church witness to what I’m talking about from Justin Martyr. Here’s an article on what Titus was doing on Crete.
[Ted Bigelow]Jay wrote,
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? I’m not buying into what you’re saying here.
Hi Jay, hope you are well and richly blessed,
Yes, the principle is confirmed in that it is taught by both precept and example in the NT.
Precept - Titus 1:5
Example: Ephesus: Acts 20:17; Jerusalem: Acts 11:22, 30, Acts 15:4; Philippi: Phil. 1:1, 4:15.
Blessings!
Ted,
Let me commend you for not interacting with roughly 95% of my previous post. That takes a special kind of skill or ability…not sure which. :/
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?
"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
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?
Hey Jay,
No, just one set of elders in each city on Crete, as per Titus 1:5. The capital city was Gortyn, but Paul and Luke likely visited another, Lasea, as per their opportunity to spend considerable time there in Acts 27:7-9.
Crete’s moniker in the ancient world was “Island of 100 cities,” and there isn’t any reason to suppose that Crete had any less than that when Paul gave Titus what I call The Titus Mandate.
[Ted Bigelow]…Paul and Luke likely visited another…Emphasis Added
Ted,
You are unwilling to grant anyone possibilities based on the text, but you make your own assumptions with the text when it is convenient. You did the same in your previous response to me. There is nothing there to presume Titus is being commanded to merge multiple churches into single churches per city. There is not even necessarily a situation where heretical elders need to be replaced with faithful ones. It is just as easy to assume new congregations are forming and leadership is needed to set things in proper order. You simply cannot make a case to only accept your personal choice of assumptions and categorically regect all other equally valid possibilities because they do not fit your assertion.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
that we have different working definitions of schism.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Chip - I say “likely” for two reasons: 1) Luke mentions the city in Acts 27, and 2) because Luke says that while in Fair Havens, they spent “considerable time” there.
But I’m perfectly happy to concede the point - it matters not to the argument of the text in Titus 1:5, except to assert that part of Titus ministry was appointing elders in the city of Lasea.
You wrote,
“There is nothing there to presume Titus is being commanded to merge multiple churches into single churches per city. There is not even necessarily a situation where heretical elders need to be replaced with faithful ones. It is just as easy to assume new congregations are forming and leadership is needed to set things in proper order.”
But Chip, by asserting that Paul ordered the appointing of elders in new congregations with new believers expressly violates 1 Tim. 3:6 and, well, implicitly charges Paul with ecclesiastical sin. It even appears you might be saying Paul (and Titus) would have left heretical churches alone. The implications of these assumptions are disastrous to Paul and Titus as servants of Scripture and leaders of churches. It assumes Paul, as an apostle, left some of Christ’s sheep under heretics, instead of both confronting them and rescuing the sheep out from their clutches. It seems to infer that Paul’s response to the unsaved men leading churches was to just started new churches. That’s not being a shepherd, but a hireling and a schismatic.
I’m not sure, but you might also be assuming that the people from Crete saved on Pentecost did not come back to Crete with their faith intact.
I’m only addressing here what I see as the tip of the iceberg - please read “Paul Did not Sin on Crete!”
As well, I think you need to read Titus 1:5 again, friend. Paul doesn’t say, “appoint elders in every church,” as it seems like you may be assuming above. Consider that the connective “gar” in Titus 1:10 supplies the reason for why Titus is to appoint elders in “every city.” Paul solution to the many rebellious church leaders is not to start new churches - he never says anything like that - but to appoint elders in every city. The apostolic NT pattern is always, and only, one church per city led by one team of qualified elders.
Again, it seems like might be assuming Paul would leave that pattern on Crete, but the distributive gk preposition “kata” in Titus 1:5 provides a better sense - one team of elders in each city.
Blessings,
But Chip, by asserting that Paul ordered the appointing of elders in new congregations with new believers expressly violates 1 Tim. 3:6and, well, implicitly charges Paul with ecclesiastical sin.
Only if you assume that every believer in the church was saved at the same time and that there weren’t some Christians already in the cities before Paul arrived. We know from Acts 2 and Acts 8:1-5 that there were multitudes of different ethnos in Jerusalem at Pentecost and who would have returned home from there. We also know people went everywhere preaching the word from Jerusalem after Stephen’s death.
So if you want to make a case from silence, you can. But that’s a little dubious to me, especially when it comes to reading the Acts record.
"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
Only if you assume that every believer in the church was saved at the same time and that there weren’t some Christians already in the cities before Paul arrived. We know from Acts 2 and Acts 8:1-5 that there were multitudes of different ethnos in Jerusalem at Pentecost and who would have returned home from there. We also know people went everywhere preaching the word from Jerusalem after Stephen’s death.
Jay, brother - exactly!
That’s why I wrote to Chip:
you might also be assuming that the people from Crete saved on Pentecost did not come back to Crete with their faith intact.
Please read Paul Did not Sin on Crete!
Consider that the connective “gar” in Titus 1:10 supplies the reason for why Titus is to appoint elders in “every city.” Paul solution to the many rebellious church leaders is not to start new churches - he never says anything like that - but to appoint elders in every city. The apostolic NT pattern is always, and only, one church per city led by one team of qualified elders.
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?
"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, are you a pastor in the only church in your town?
Jay that is a question I wanted to ask. Ted’s position does seem de novo. I am reminded of something the late Dr. Weeks of MBU said in Church Administration.
[Dr. Richard Weeks]Remember, men, God doesn’t speak just to you. So, if you present something to your men and you have no support, back off. If God hasn’t spoken to any of your men then it’s not the right time.
[Jay]Consider that the connective “gar” in Titus 1:10 supplies the reason for why Titus is to appoint elders in “every city.” Paul solution to the many rebellious church leaders is not to start new churches - he never says anything like that - but to appoint elders in every city. The apostolic NT pattern is always, and only, one church per city led by one team of qualified elders.
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 the face. I’ve never heard of this position outside of your teaching. Why is that?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Jay -
Yet I’ve never heard of this position outside of your teaching. Why is that?
You have, Jay. Most every time you begin reading a letter in the NT, it reads, “to the church in __________” with the name of a city, and the word “church” in the singular. You just haven’t taken the time to think through the implications of those words, or cross references from the glorified Jesus Christ and how He defines churches.
We are weak and liable to misunderstanding in part because we’ve never seen one church in a city and so assume it isn’t prescriptive but only descriptive, but it was the context of the original recipients of those letters. Passages like 1 Cor. 1:10 tell us in no uncertain terms it is also prescriptive.
Why then do we exert unbelief at the theology? Perhaps because you, like I, live in the Age of Schism.
Discussion