The Teaching Office

It probably got lost in everything, but are there any references to plural churches in a city?

If yes, then would that disprove Ted’s point?

If not, then would that reinforce Ted’s point?

Can we not let the scripture decide rather than peripheral matters? In other words, let us reason together from the scripture what is actually true, then proceed to how to work it out.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

Ted,

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?

Chip - you first entered the thread quoting Greg H’s own entry into this thread. I am referring to that original entry by Greg. And remember, Greg came in on a post that was all about the exegesis of Acts 16:4 and Bauder’s congregationalism and redirected it in his own direction:

“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.​”

Then you jumped in Greg’s car and redirected things again. But your questions presuppose certain things that are opposed to Scripture, and until you answer the one very simple question I gave to you, your questions, which are many, presumptive, and front-loaded, will not be answered.

For the third time, “Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?

I have this question for those of you who think that the congregation had a role in determining truth or still has such oversight authority of pastors today.

1 Tim 2:12 states: I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.

Presumably none of you attend all male churches. Women then make up part of the congregation. For women to have doctrinal authority (even shared) of pastors would violate this passage in a pastoral epistle. If you attempt to solve that problem by having only men serve as oversight of the pastor, then you have fractured something without Christ’s approval.

[Ted Bigelow]

Chip Van Emmerik wrote:

Ted,

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?

Chip - you first entered the thread quoting Greg H’s own entry into this thread. I am referring to that original entry by Greg. And remember, Greg came in on a post that was all about the exegesis of Acts 16:4 and Bauder’s congregationalism and redirected it in his own direction:

“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.​”

Then you jumped in Greg’s car and redirected things again. But your questions presuppose certain things that are opposed to Scripture, and until you answer the one very simple question I gave to you, your questions, which are many, presumptive, and front-loaded, will not be answered.

For the third time, “Chip, if you had been the pastor of Sardis or Laodicea, would you have been the pastor of a true church?

You should have been a carney, because you play more games than anyone I have ever known. I teach middle school students, and I have never seen anyone work so hard to deflect the conversation and avoid answering a simple question. You referred to your blog which doesn’t answer the question. You have avoided this question from the beginning. I guess you are acknowledging in a round-about way that you are a hypocrite with no excuse for breaking the rules you are trying to impose on everyone else.

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

It’s masculine plural.

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

The Holy Spirit calls it a church, so we assume it was a church. Unless of course, you want to deny the authority of Scripture.

Now that your questions have been answered, you answer the questions put to you.

This is a trainwreck. Ted, admittedly, I am not in charge of who answers what and in what order. But on the other hand, neither are you. I am not required to answer your questions. You don’t have to answer mine either. I will just say that until you do, you are going to continue to beat your head against the wall here. For a guy that works so hard at trying to convince people of things, you are remarkably bad at it with your condescending tone and apparent hypocrisy. I have to step back and wonder what your purpose is in being here. Every time you post, you dig deeper.

[GregH]

This is a trainwreck. Ted, admittedly, I am not in charge of who answers what and in what order. But on the other hand, neither are you. I am not required to answer your questions. You don’t have to answer mine either. I will just say that until you do, you are going to continue to beat your head against the wall here. For a guy that works so hard at trying to convince people of things, you are remarkably bad at it with your condescending tone and apparent hypocrisy. I have to step back and wonder what your purpose is in being here. Every time you post, you dig deeper.

GregH, it’s a lot easier to convince people that you’re right when you can:

• dictate the flow of conversation,
• ignore the questions you don’t like, and
• personally attack the people involved with impunity.

The steps to spreading false doctrine are very similar - separate (from the truth), isolate (from other believers and to the heretic’s writings or teaching), and dominate (through constant exposure to false teaching). That’s the MO of people who are here to draw people away from the truth, whether it’s the doctrine of eternal punishment, King James Inspiration, or (in this case) aberrant ecclesiology.

I’ve been a member here for almost 10 years, and it’s always the same pattern with heretics and schismatics. They come to SharperIron and sow confusion and discord, not peace. The wisdom that comes from God is first “pure, then peaceable” (James 3:17), and our God is a “God of Peace” (1 Cor. 14:33). Christians are commanded to live at peace with everyone, as much as is possible (Romans 12:18). Anyone who comes to a place where Christians gather for edification and encouragement but brings strife and discord is not from God (Galatians 5:19-21) and should be treated as such. If anyone doubts me, go through and read some of the archived threads some time, particularly the ones with the most posts. Some of you with the unfortunate experience of going through this personally will see the pattern as well.

Ted - this is my last post aimed at you. I specifically charged you with slander, false teaching, and spreading division earlier today. If that isn’t good enough for you to understand why I am calling you a schismatic, then I can’t help you. In any case, I’m done interacting with your posts until you answer some hard questions or repent.

[DavidO]

They wrote this letter by them:

The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law” —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

The congregation approved the decision of the elders. TB seems to think of that as some kind of usurping or “sheep-leading-the-shepherd.” I think that’s where the problem starts. Congregationalists don’t see this as usurping at all. Rather, it is a formal act of following the shepherds.

[TB] Now you need to show why Acts 15:22 establishes governmental “approval” as opposed to just “going in along with.”

Elders (pastors) lead. Congregations follow. But they really follow; you can tell because they act on it by stating doctrine and holding to it.

I specifically charged you with slander, false teaching, and spreading division earlier today.

Not just today, but yesterday as well.

Yet, when I asked you over and again to clearly state my false teaching, you have not. But that’s because (as I said to you yesterday) you only want my feedback to your posts so you can write another post that gives vent to whatever it is that enters your heart.

My criticism’s of Kevin have been specific - related to his aberrant ecclesiology, and specifically his shallow method of handling Scripture (example without precept). I have shown how his counsel to churches directly goes against Scripture in Acts 16:4 in multiple posts.

Any religious person can throw around accusations, Jay, and think to themselves, “my hands are clean.” Solomon warns us, “All the ways of a man are right in his own eyes, but the Lord weights the heart.” It’s as easy for you (and me) as being in Adam.

But when you make an accusation of another person, and especially an elder, you are required to back it up or else be recognized as a slanderer. So far all you have done is accuse but never substantiate, though asked several times to do so by the very one you are accusing.

Repentance will either mean apologizing before all for making accusation but without substantiation, and supplying all with proof of your accusation(s), or apologizing to all and admitting your accusations are not true because you do not have evidence that I am a false teacher.

A lack of repentance will just mean that you type out and post whatever accusations seems good to you to make.

I teach middle school students, and I have never seen anyone work so hard to deflect the conversation and avoid answering a simple question.

Well there you go, I think we found our problem.

Your students are obligated to answer you, and you are right to pursue them for answers. But the authority you have been granted over them you do not have over me. Therefore, when you ask questions of me and get answers, though unsatisfactory to you, you are not free to then dismiss my questions to you and simply go back asking more questions along with their associated slanders. My questions to you have a purpose to help you gain a more biblical ecclesiology, not to tear you down. The same could not be said for your questions to me.

From the beginning your questions have been of the “Yes or no, do you still beat your wife” variety, and among the children of this age would have deserved no response whatsoever. But Chip, you claim to be a child of the kingdom, and yet relate to one who by grace is in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in very non-kingdom ways.

I hope you are blessed serving the students.

[Ted Bigelow]

I teach middle school students, and I have never seen anyone work so hard to deflect the conversation and avoid answering a simple question.

Well there you go, I think we found our problem.

Your students are obligated to answer you, and you are right to pursue them for answers. But the authority you have been granted over them you do not have over me. Therefore, when you ask questions of me and get answers, though unsatisfactory to you, you are not free to then dismiss my questions to you and simply go back asking more questions along with their associated slanders. My questions to you have a purpose to help you gain a more biblical ecclesiology, not to tear you down. The same could not be said for your questions to me.

[Ted Bigelow also]

From the beginning your questions have been of the “Yes or no, do you still beat your wife” variety, and among the children of this age would have deserved no response whatsoever. But Chip, you claim to be a child of the kingdom, and yet relate to one who by grace is in the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in very non-kingdom ways.

I hope you are blessed serving the students.

I can’t figure out if you are playing dodge ball or hide and go seek. There you go again trying to redirect the conversation. No one has restricted you to yes or no, now you are simply lying. Everyone has invited you to explain in any way you choose. Unfortunately, you refuse to answer at all. From the beginning my question has been the same one asked by almost everyone interacting with you on this thread, the one you have consistently dodged and refused to answer. My question is simple and legitimate. From all appearances, you have violated your own teaching in starting a church. This question was asked originally in good faith. After you spent so much time and spilled so much electronic ink offering non-answers and then avoiding any answer at all, the only conclusion any reasonable person can draw is that you have no answer. You preach one thing to everyone here on SI but practice something else in your own life and ministry. You are a hypocrite and/or a false teacher. If this is not accurate, then simply answer the question. How are you able to justify starting a new assembly when there were already churches in your region with whom you could have joined? Why are you doing what you have told us not to do? Why do you have to be in leadership in order to join with another church? Why couldn’t you simply join the existing body under submission to the leader God had already placed there? Explain yourself. Show us how your actions are consistent with your message.

[James K]

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.

JamesK is correct on this - I remember hearing about and seeing defenses of a plurality of elders leading vs. congregational led churches in undergrad back in the ’90s. I may disagree with James on this, but his position has been around for a very long time. I should also note that JamesK is to be commended for making shifts in his ecclesiology if that is what he believes Scripture teaches even though it goes against his training.

Hi Dan -

The congregation approved the decision of the elders. TB seems to think of that as some kind of usurping or “sheep-leading-the-shepherd.” I think that’s where the problem starts. Congregationalists don’t see this as usurping at all. Rather, it is a formal act of following the shepherds.

TB wrote:

Now you need to show why Acts 15:22 establishes governmental “approval” as opposed to just “going in along with.”

Congregationalists don’t see a meaningful difference between these. What happened in Acts 15 (which was carried out in 16) was that the congregation formally agreed with its leadership. That’s all we see congregational doctrinal statements to be.

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.

This is reflected in Acts 16:4, where Paul’s deliverance of the letter comes with the obligation of these churches to keep the contents (dogmata, “decrees”)of the letter for the reason that they were “judged (kekprimina) by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem.”

If congregationalism were true, and those decrees rested on the authority of the church in Jerusalem, why then were they binding on two other autonomous churches: “for them to observe”? 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 and perhaps an existing doctrinal statement. Yet this directly violates the mandated obedience to the contents of the letter and requires that Paul and Silas’ authority was not from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem but was in reality under each church’s own authority.

But the congregational position has to be wrong, for it presupposes sin in the text as Luke reports it. Either Paul and Silas sinned by forcing autonomous churches to obey the decisions of another church, or the churches of Derbe and Lystra, and all others, sinned by obeying the authority of men outside their church. Or both.

One last difficulty for the congregational position is this - what happened to the men in the church of Jerusalem who still believed in salvation by circumcision? Did they repent, and now believe in justification by faith, and so when “the whole church” gave governmental approval, they went along? If so, we are left not only scratching our heads to identify who were the false teachers and apostles who dogged Paul all his ministry with false accusations, upsetting whole churches, but as to why Luke wouldn’t report such a wonderful turn of heart in the agitators.

Well, there’s a couple things to meditate on.

One last difficulty for the congregational position is this - what happened to the men in the church of Jerusalem who still believed in salvation by circumcision? Did they repent, and now believe in justification by faith, and so when “the whole church” gave governmental approval, they went along? If so, we are left not only scratching our heads to identify who were the false teachers and apostles who dogged Paul all his ministry with false accusations, upsetting whole churches, but as to why Luke wouldn’t report such a wonderful turn of heart in the agitators.

I don’t see why this must be a difficulty. Perhaps they did repent, perhaps not. Perhaps some repented and others did not. One might as well ask why Luke did not record their expulsion from the church (that all may fear) as why he did not record repentance.

And backing up to your answer regarding the church being the pillar and ground of truth. You favor that meaning the institution. But then you intimate that the only part of the institution meant there is the eldership which hands doctrine to the congregation and succeeding elders. But the congregations, the members, are part of that institution. They must be included as part of the pillar and ground function of the institution. One may refer to the whole of Microsoft by the name of Bill Gates, but one can hardly refer to Microsoft by its actual name and not include, at least implicitly, the stockholders.

And by that I’m not making an analogy between the church and a business. I’m talking about how language works.

[Ted Bigelow]

If congregationalism were true, and those decrees rested on the authority of the church in Jerusalem, why then were they binding on two other autonomous churches: “for them to observe”? 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 and perhaps an existing doctrinal statement. Yet this directly violates the mandated obedience to the contents of the letter and requires that Paul and Silas’ authority was not from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem but was in reality under each church’s own authority.

But the congregational position has to be wrong, for it presupposes sin in the text as Luke reports it. Either Paul and Silas sinned by forcing autonomous churches to obey the decisions of another church, or the churches of Derbe and Lystra, and all others, sinned by obeying the authority of men outside their church. Or both.

Sadly, Ted, still waiting for your simple answer on the first question posed to you. Why don’t your rules appear to apply to you? Why shouldn’t we number you among the disobedient hypocrites or false teachers for leading in opening the doors to your assembly when other churches already existed in your region? Why was it justifiable for you further divide the flock in your region, at least according to the paradigm you have been promoting here, instead of submitting to your own understanding of scripture and placing yourself within an existing assembly in your region and under the leadership of the man or men God had already established as undershpeherds of His flock in your region?