The Teaching Office

[TylerR]

• It is very clear from Acts 15:22-23 that the entire congregation, including the leaders, were involved in the drafting and dispatching of the letter.
• It is also very clear that the congregation was steered and shepherded by the elders

Your first point is not clear at all Tyler. If you read verse 23, it lays out who the authors of the letter are. It isn’t the church at all. It is exclusively the apostles and elders. That is Ted’s point. The greek verifies this.

Verse 23: “From the apostles and the elders”

I am about done with this thread because it has devolved so far from the original matters.

For all those who want to throw the condemnation back at Ted for his view, can any of you support from scripture that there should be many churches within the same city? I haven’t really looked into Ted’s view except some brief comments on SI, so I am not defending him.

[TylerR]

Your position on ecclesiology is novel. I hope you would admit that.

Tyler, I can assure you that the position of plural elders actually leading the church is not novel. Perhaps you were talking about something else. I disagree with many close friends on this, my seminary training, and some well known professors who I keep in contact. It wasn’t an easy transition to my view, but it is one I felt compelled to in order to align my beliefs with the scripture.

The novel position of Ted’s is not his position on the plurality of elders. His novel position is (the condensed version) there can be only one proper non-schismatic church in any particular geographic area.

[James K]

TylerR wrote:

Your position on ecclesiology is novel. I hope you would admit that.

Tyler, I can assure you that the position of plural elders actually leading the church is not novel. Perhaps you were talking about something else. I disagree with many close friends on this, my seminary training, and some well known professors who I keep in contact. It wasn’t an easy transition to my view, but it is one I felt compelled to in order to align my beliefs with the scripture.

[Jay]

Ted Bigelow wrote:

If you are offended because I have called you out on your false teaching, then either reply with Scripture, clarify where I’m wrong, or apologize.

Bring it on Jay. Clearly state my false teaching.

Bring it on…says the man who can’t or won’t (at this point I’m leaning more towards won’t) answer the multiple questions about why he divided the one true church in his town, and who won’t apologize for slandering Dr. Bauder and charging him with false teaching.

Jay, #2. Clearly state my false teaching.

[TylerR]

You asked:

Hi Tyler, the verb “chose” in Acts 15:22 - is it feminine singular or masculine plural?

Please just ask your question and stop being coy. What is your point?

Your position on ecclesiology is novel. I hope you would admit that. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make it wrong. Dispensationalists have endured similar charges from our Covenant brethren. We have done a whole lot of leg-work in historical theology and proven that ours is indeed not a very novel position; there is historical precedent for premillennial, dispensational distinctives. We have also done a whole lot of work in Biblical Theology to prove our point. Ryrie’s Basis of the Premillennial Faith, Walvoord’s Millennial Kingdom and McClain’s Greatness of the Kingdom come to mind. That being said, I ask the following:

• Where is your historical theology? Show me anybody from church history who has ever supported your position. Surely you’re not the only one, are you?
• Where is your Biblical Theology? March me through your NT ecclesiology and prove your point from somewhere other than Titus - prove it from the various epistle and Gospels throughout the whole NT.
• Where is your Systematic Theology? Prove to me that your peculiar ecclesiology is supported by the entirety of the NT revelation, based on the sure foundation of BT.

Where is the heavy spade work to justify your position? Surely you suffered through hermeneutics class just like the rest of us did. Systematic Theology follows upon the heels of Biblical Theology. Where is yours? Moreover, where is historical precedent to support your claims? Let’s really dig into this issue.

Hi Tyler,

You don’t get answers to your questions until you answer mine first.

You wrote, “It is very clear from Acts 15:22-23 that the entire congregation, including the leaders, were involved in the drafting and dispatching of the letter.”

I asked you, “Tyler, the verb “chose” in Acts 15:22 - is it feminine singular or masculine plural?”

When you’ve answered the question and we’ve examined your answer then we’ll move on to your questions. But if you continue to refuse to be held accountable on such a simple thing, then it will be obvious your intentions are not to submit your teaching to Holy Scripture.

Ted,

I know you’ve been busy getting questions from a lot of directions.I also realize that my last question got trapped on the other side of the page change making it easy to forget. I did what you asked and went back to the article on your blog, Location, Location, Location. You indicated I didn’t chose the right quotes to apply to this discussion, and you wanted me to read the comments to the article, particularly the first 2. I will summarize the questions that remain.

1. You never indicated why the quotes I chose from your article didn’t apply to you or your situation indicating you are, at best, a hypocrite or, at worst, a false teacher.

2. You haven’t identified which quotes from your rather lengthy article you think apply more accurately to this situation to explain why you shouldn’t be considered a hypocrite or false teacher.

3. I read the comments after the article. Nowhere in the article or the comments have I seen the explanation you repeatedly claim is there. I will ask again what others have asked repeatedly. Stop playing games and just answer the question. Why should we not consider you a schismatic hypocrite or a false teacher, based on your own paradigm, for pastoring a church in a region with many other churches? You indicate in the comments to your own blog that there are other churches you esteem as faithful because you were trying at that point to join with them. Are you three the only ones in your region? Why did you feel justified starting your church in the first place? If you were going to be obedient to the understanding of scripture you have been espousing here, wouldn’t you have been required to join an existing church rather than contribute to the division of the flock in your region by opening the doors to another schismatic and fragmented branch of the local assembly?

Please Ted, no more diatribes or misdirection. Simply give us an answer. You must have one. Stop playing coy games and just let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Ted Bigelow wrote:

The most precise quote I could find in the article was this one

Chip - that’s the quote you chose, but you missed the more apropos quotes. However, read the comments, especially 1.2.

“One true church?” Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?

Fine Ted, you say I missed the better quotes. Of course, you don’t indicate why the quote I did point out shouldn’t be applied to you. But if there are better quotes, bring them here and answer the question. I went back and read the comments, as you requested. You still didn’t answer the question why we shouldn’t consider you schismatic, by your own definition, for opening your church when others already existed in your city. You mention in your responses to your own blog that you had tried near the time of that writing to join with two other churches in your area, so we know there are other faithful churches by your standards. Why shouldn’t we consider you at best a hypocrite and at worst a false teacher for not following the very advice you are promoting here? What gave you the biblical right to start your church instead of simply joining with the flock that was already present in your region? Why did you further divide the one true church of Christ in your region?

Hi Chip,

You’re kicking the can down the road. The question was, “what is your church doing about merging churches?” The answer about us personally was in comment 1.2. Now your questions move to me personally and thereby misses the forest for the trees. Nothing here or in my article, Location, Location, Location discusses schismatic individuals, but rather schismatic churches. The article is a public teaching on the local body of Christ, whose contents I am obligated to defend.

Chip, before we can discuss your questions two things have to occur. If you don’t answer my questions previously given you, I won’t answer your subsequent questions. It’s Mat. 7:12.

In my prior reply to you I quoted you asserting “one true church” and asked you, “Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?” You did not answer. Instead, you replied to me with more questions and allegations. If you do not answer my question (which is simple), then you won’t get your questions (which are front loaded) answered.

Two, assuming you do answer, we have to have an agreed upon definition of schism in order to assess if I, or you, is schismatic.

I propose the following - the NT defines schism for us (not Roman Catholicism), and it is a definition applied first and foremost to churches. I propose the following: any church that refuses to obey Scripture’s clear teachings for churches in doctrine and practice, and which are clearly revealed to all men in both Precept and Example, is schismatic.

From that let’s give a working definition of a a schismatic teacher. He is one who refuses to amend his doctrine and duty by the same hermeneutic of Precept and Example in Holy Scripture.

Until I know that you at least understand P&E (even if you refuse it as a binding principle) then I can answer your questions, for at least you will understand the authority of Scripture that I teach under.

[GregH]

Ted Bigelow wrote:

GregH wrote:

Ted, put everything else aside and answer the question that Jay, myself and others ask you:

How is what you are doing/did in CT consistent with your teaching about one church/per town, appointing elders, etc?

From all appearances, you have a bit of credibility problem. I don’t expect you to answer this question because you have been ducking it for months.

Greg, already answered in my last reply to you.

Um no, you have not answered the question. Not to me or anyone else. I am wondering why. Is it because you are scared to admit that you believe all the other churches in your town are apostate? I would remind everyone that not only does Ted probably think this but he also considers himself an apostle based on this post where he admits “it was sort of myself who “appointed” me.”

Greg, I have, but you haven’t understood as is plain from your question, ” Is it because you are scared to admit that you believe all the other churches in your town are apostate?” Even Chip, who is quoting your questions and who read my article and comments, knows that isn’t true. As well, I do not think I am an apostle.

I asked you two days ago in this thread what books of the NT you were teaching. You did not answer me even though it was a simple question. Now you want me to answer more of your questions without answering mine? (Mat. 7:12)

So #2, “Greg, what books of the NT are you teaching?” If you do not answer me I will not answer you.

You wrote:

But if you continue to refuse to be held accountable on such a simple thing, then it will be obvious your intentions are not to submit your teaching to Holy Scripture.

You know very well what the larger issue we have is with your position. You refuse to engage, dance coyly around, and issue silly statements like this. I am disappointed you do not have the honesty to address the very issue you know is at the heart of our conflict with you. If you were honestly seeking to interact, you would attempt to answer these larger issues rather than sticking with congregationalism. You appear to have no other goal other than to be schismatic. You intentionally lurk on SI and pop at up at relevant points to propagate your peculiar doctrine, but are seemingly unwilling to create your own thread. If you are honestly trying to get us to see your point of view, you are failing.

If you begin to answer the larger issues you know full well are behind this impasse, then I’ll re-engage. Your reluctance to engage on the larger issue is clear for all to see.

[TylerR]

You wrote:

But if you continue to refuse to be held accountable on such a simple thing, then it will be obvious your intentions are not to submit your teaching to Holy Scripture.

You know very well what the larger issue we have is with your position. You refuse to engage, dance coyly around, and issue silly statements like this. I am disappointed you do not have the honesty to address the very issue you know is at the heart of our conflict with you. If you were honestly seeking to interact, you would attempt to answer these larger issues rather than sticking with congregationalism. You appear to have no other goal other than to be schismatic. You intentionally lurk on SI and pop at up at relevant points to propagate your peculiar doctrine, but are seemingly unwilling to create your own thread. If you are honestly trying to get us to see your point of view, you are failing.

If you begin to answer the larger issues you know full well are behind this impasse, then I’ll re-engage. Your reluctance to engage on the larger issue is clear for all to see.

Tyler, honesty begins with being submitted to Scripture, otherwise you have made yourself your own judge. Just as i have called Kevin to respond to his claims on Acts 15 and lack of accountability to Acts 16;4, so now twice you have refused to answer an exceedingly simple question: “Hi Tyler, the verb “chose” in Acts 15:22 - is it feminine singular or masculine plural?”

Instead you assert your own authority, such as “I ask the following: Where is your historical theology? Show me anybody from church history who has ever supported your position…”

For some reason you believe your questions ought to be answered and mine ignored. But the Lord Jesus taught His followers, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Mat 7:12).

Hi Chip,
You’re kicking the can down the road. The question was, “what is your church doing about merging churches?” The answer about us personally was in comment 1.2. Now your questions move to me personally and thereby misses the forest for the trees. Nothing here or in my article, Location, Location, Location discusses schismatic individuals, but rather schismatic churches. The article is a public teaching on the local body of Christ, whose contents I am obligated to defend.
Chip, before we can discuss your questions two things have to occur. If you don’t answer my questions previously given you, I won’t answer your subsequent questions. It’s Mat. 7:12.
In my prior reply to you I quoted you asserting “one true church” and asked you, “Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?” You did not answer. Instead, you replied to me with more questions and allegations. If you do not answer my question (which is simple), then you won’t get your questions (which are front loaded) answered.

Two, assuming you do answer, we have to have an agreed upon definition of schism in order to assess if I, or you, is schismatic.

I propose the following - the NT defines schism for us (not Roman Catholicism), and it is a definition applied first and foremost to churches. I propose the following: any church that refuses to obey Scripture’s clear teachings for churches in doctrine and practice, and which are clearly revealed to all men in both Precept and Example, is schismatic.

Ted,

Now you’re just embarrassing yourself. You can talk about Sardis and Laodicea all you want - even though the letters are written to the angel of the church (and what is meant by that is a different discussion) - but the charge of schism is not applied anywhere in the NT to churches corporately. It is, however, continually applied to those who individuals who bring false doctrine into the church:

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. - Acts 20:28-31
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. - Romans 16:17

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. - 2 Thessalonians 3:6

As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine… - I Tim. 1:3

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. - 1 Timothy 6:3-5

I am disappointed you do not have the honesty to address the very issue you know is at the heart of our conflict with you. If you were honestly seeking to interact, you would attempt to answer these larger issues rather than sticking with congregationalism. You appear to have no other goal other than to be schismatic. You intentionally lurk on SI and pop at up at relevant points to propagate your peculiar doctrine, but are seemingly unwilling to create your own thread. If you are honestly trying to get us to see your point of view, you are failing.

Which is exactly why, Ted, I think that the charge of false teacher applies to you (to answer your post from 6:45 AM). You’re a textbook example of Acts 20:28-31 and 1 Timothy 6:3-5. I think that the moderators would do all of us a service by locking this thread and banning you from this website for continued violations of C.4, E.1, and someone who ‘is not a good fit with the site’s purposes or community’ in the Comment Policy.

We’ve all wasted enough time trying to reason with you. Be gone.

Jay, #3. Clearly state my false teaching

[Ted Bigelow]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Ted Bigelow wrote:

The most precise quote I could find in the article was this one

Chip - that’s the quote you chose, but you missed the more apropos quotes. However, read the comments, especially 1.2.

“One true church?” Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?

Fine Ted, you say I missed the better quotes. Of course, you don’t indicate why the quote I did point out shouldn’t be applied to you. But if there are better quotes, bring them here and answer the question. I went back and read the comments, as you requested. You still didn’t answer the question why we shouldn’t consider you schismatic, by your own definition, for opening your church when others already existed in your city. You mention in your responses to your own blog that you had tried near the time of that writing to join with two other churches in your area, so we know there are other faithful churches by your standards. Why shouldn’t we consider you at best a hypocrite and at worst a false teacher for not following the very advice you are promoting here? What gave you the biblical right to start your church instead of simply joining with the flock that was already present in your region? Why did you further divide the one true church of Christ in your region?

Hi Chip,

You’re kicking the can down the road. The question was, “what is your church doing about merging churches?” The answer about us personally was in comment 1.2. Now your questions move to me personally and thereby misses the forest for the trees. Nothing here or in my article, Location, Location, Location discusses schismatic individuals, but rather schismatic churches. The article is a public teaching on the local body of Christ, whose contents I am obligated to defend.

Chip, before we can discuss your questions two things have to occur. If you don’t answer my questions previously given you, I won’t answer your subsequent questions. It’s Mat. 7:12.

In my prior reply to you I quoted you asserting “one true church” and asked you, “Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?” You did not answer. Instead, you replied to me with more questions and allegations. If you do not answer my question (which is simple), then you won’t get your questions (which are front loaded) answered.

Two, assuming you do answer, we have to have an agreed upon definition of schism in order to assess if I, or you, is schismatic.

I propose the following - the NT defines schism for us (not Roman Catholicism), and it is a definition applied first and foremost to churches. I propose the following: any church that refuses to obey Scripture’s clear teachings for churches in doctrine and practice, and which are clearly revealed to all men in both Precept and Example, is schismatic.

From that let’s give a working definition of a a schismatic teacher. He is one who refuses to amend his doctrine and duty by the same hermeneutic of Precept and Example in Holy Scripture.

Until I know that you at least understand P&E (even if you refuse it as a binding principle) then I can answer your questions, for at least you will understand the authority of Scripture that I teach under.

If you want to play the chronology game, I asked you questions which have remained unanswered before you asked me anything. The question you continue to dodge is still the first one on the list. Why should you/your church not be considered hypocritical/false teachers according to your own paradigm for opening your doors in a city where numerous other churches already were in existence? Why shouldn’t you individually or collectively be considered disobedient to the claims of scripture that you are promoting for failing to unite with the already existing church in your region instead of further fragmenting the flock by organizing another assembly?