My father and I have written a white paper entitled The Bible and Authority in the Church. We invite anyone interested to download and print the paper (pdf) here. Our booklet is designed to help those Christians who have been told that certain people have spiritual authority over others in the church. Many Christians have been duped into believing that the Bible teaches God places pastors, deacons, elders, or other individuals in the church "over" the flock of Christ, similar to a Chief Executive Officer rules "over" a corporation, or a board rules "over" a company, etc... Further, Christian patriarchalism proposes that only men should be placed in those positions of authority, making the issue of spiritual authority one of gender. Christian feminism reacts to unblibical patriarchalism by emphasizing gender--the female gender--and errs in a similar manner to patriarchalism. Our white paper shows that true spiritual authority comes from God's gifting, Christ's commissioning and the Spirit's anointing. We Christians individually serve the body of Christ through the anointed giftedness each of us has received. Nowhere in Scripture is any human being ever given the role of having "authority" over another Christian. In fact, Jesus absolutely forbids this type of leadership and authority that the world loves to practice (Matthew 20:26). For Christians, Jesus Christ is the only authority over us. All authority is His. Because of this, those fellow Christians around us who have been gifted by God, commissioned by Christ, and anointed by the Holy Spirit, edify the body of Christ. The church has servant/leaders who encourage others through the gifts God has given them--regardless of their gender, their race, or their social status. I have written before that the major problem in the evangelical church is authoritarianism, not legalism. Now we provide the answers to the problem. It is my hope that this white paper will be useful to those who are interested in applying within the church what the Scripture actually teaches on the subject of authority.Friday, September 28, 2012
The Bible and Church Authority: Who Rules Over Us?
My father and I have written a white paper entitled The Bible and Authority in the Church. We invite anyone interested to download and print the paper (pdf) here. Our booklet is designed to help those Christians who have been told that certain people have spiritual authority over others in the church. Many Christians have been duped into believing that the Bible teaches God places pastors, deacons, elders, or other individuals in the church "over" the flock of Christ, similar to a Chief Executive Officer rules "over" a corporation, or a board rules "over" a company, etc... Further, Christian patriarchalism proposes that only men should be placed in those positions of authority, making the issue of spiritual authority one of gender. Christian feminism reacts to unblibical patriarchalism by emphasizing gender--the female gender--and errs in a similar manner to patriarchalism. Our white paper shows that true spiritual authority comes from God's gifting, Christ's commissioning and the Spirit's anointing. We Christians individually serve the body of Christ through the anointed giftedness each of us has received. Nowhere in Scripture is any human being ever given the role of having "authority" over another Christian. In fact, Jesus absolutely forbids this type of leadership and authority that the world loves to practice (Matthew 20:26). For Christians, Jesus Christ is the only authority over us. All authority is His. Because of this, those fellow Christians around us who have been gifted by God, commissioned by Christ, and anointed by the Holy Spirit, edify the body of Christ. The church has servant/leaders who encourage others through the gifts God has given them--regardless of their gender, their race, or their social status. I have written before that the major problem in the evangelical church is authoritarianism, not legalism. Now we provide the answers to the problem. It is my hope that this white paper will be useful to those who are interested in applying within the church what the Scripture actually teaches on the subject of authority.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
71 comments:
View (The Bible and Authority in the Church) pdf in browser without downloading
Excellent paper! Thank you Wade and Paul!
Brother, I'm with you on lots of things. And I've been listening to your blog for a while... but I'm not so convinced by this particular angle you take on leadership.
Jesus doesn't say "there will no be no leaders among you", or "there will be none who have any form of authority", and neither does anyone else in the NT.
What Jesus *does* say is that leadership in the Christian community must be radically and utterly different, and the ruler/leader like one who servers (Lk 22:26).
Thus, Titus & Timothy are instructed to give godly people *responsibility* to lead and serve.
And the most important attribute of those in leadership is not their fancy gifts, but their character - they must be 'above reproach' humble servants, so that they can lead in the way that Christ has said.
With responsibility comes authority.
The fact that it must be exercised in a radical, self-sacrificial way doesn't mean all notions of responsibility are therefore meaningless.
Yes, 'authoritarianism' is bad. But authority is not an inherently evil thing - only the abuse of it.
(P.S. I don't write from an American context, so I see things a little differently and don't have the same history).
Regards, Sam C.
Sam,
Thanks for your comment.
I don't think we are saying there is no leadership (as you imply) - what we are saying is that leadership arises by the empowerment of the Holy Spirit as God's people SERVE, based on their giftedness, and teach, prophecy, exhort, encourage, give, shepherd, etc...
We don't grant or give authority based on titles or positions (the way the world does it), but we observe people serving and follow because we see the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives.
So there IS leadership in the church - it just looks different than the leadership we see in the world. Nobody demands. Nobody controls. Nobody postures. Nobody rules.
We serve.
Thy Peace,
Once again, thank you. There is a typo on page 5 that we are repairing, so those who print off the paper will need to repair it as well:
Page 5, Paragraph 4 which reads "Again, this is the only time the Greek word exousia (authority) is used in the Bible and it is not in reference to the local church at all, but in reference to marriage"
This sentence should read: "Again, this is the only time the word exousia (authority) is used in reference to marriage in the Bible, and it is never used in reference to the local church at all."
Sam, I think a distinction needs to be made between "leadership" - the act of leading or position of being a leader-- and "authority"-- the right and power to be the leader.
From my studies in the Old and New Testaments, it seems that authority is something necessary in this world's systems, but that in the New Creation Kingdom, all authority (right and power to be the Leader) is God's alone. I believe in the Kingdom, God raises up leaders to act in God's authority, but they are to claim no authority as their own by right, but rather to consider themselves servants. The greatest in the Kingdom, according to Jesus, are below lifting the people up, not pulling them from above.
I prefer the term "Christian egalitarian" but for historical reasons "Christian femenist" means the same thing, as they both seek equality of believers and ministries based on giftedness from the Spirit.
aWade, I am stunned you actually said "Christian feminism reacts to unblibical patriarchalism by emphasizing gender--the female gender--and errs in a similar manner to patriarchalism. " CBE does not say that, nor did any egalitarian I have ever read or came across on blogs, etc. Nobody who believes in gender equality in the Body of Christ ever said things like: the office of pastors and elders is reserved for women only, mothers and wives are to lead their family and be responsible for the direction of the family, only women are to be spiritual leaders at home, men who serve need the spiritual covering of women, etc. Can you give me one example of this "similar manner" you talk about?
Mabel,
I am not referring to CBE. I do not consider CBE as an organization that emphasizes Christian feminism.
Kristen,I think the distinction should be between exemplary acts of Christian faith done by any believer, and the formal position of leadership in our congregations. For example, our preacher said last week his 5 year old son was told by a fellow pupil that the world evolved out slime and tadpoles. Up stood the little boy in church, and in clear, bold voice told us his reply was that Jesus made it all. We have now mostly forgotten the preacher's sermon, but we won't forget we were led by a little boy to bear bold witness to the truth. When it comes to leadership, handsome is as handsome does. You will know who your leaders are by their fruits. The'Servant Leader' position is an oxymoron; it should be 'servants', finish and done !
Wade, I am a CBE active member. Many would call us, and many of us call ourselves, Christian feminists, with a capital C. Non of us teach any theology that is the mirror image of what is taught by the patriarchs. As Don said, "Christian femenist" means the same thing ( as Christian egalitarians), as they both seek equality of believers and ministries based on giftedness from the Spirit.
Wade,
Many thanks to you and your dad. You have done a service to God's people in making this booklet freely available.
Reading it has awakened memories of the struggles I had 30-40 years ago as a fledgling pastor. Eventually, through Scripture, I was able to satisfactorily answer my own questions.
During those days there were many warnings about those who twisted scripture.
Ironically,the warnings were given by many of my denominational peers who twisted scripture to justify their own traditional positions.
Mabel,
Meaning is all in the definitions. If I considered egaliterianism as feminism, then you would have a point. I don't.
Kristen,
You have made some excellent points.
Ginklestinker, I agree that God can use anyone to lead, and that those who lead on a regular basis should see themselves as servants, not "servant leaders," and should be willing to submit to the Holy Spirit no matter who He speaks through.
Wade, thank you so much! I really enjoyed your paper!
I like what Kevin Giles said when he said this, "If believers hold to the creation story recorded in Genesis they will be complementarian. But then, there is the possibility of being patriarchal complementarian or egalitarian complementarian."
I believe the scriptures are, when correctly interpreted, decidedly the latter.
Feminism and patriarchalism it seems to me, by the very nature of the words, both emphasis the lifting up of a gender. which seems to oppose, if not contradict the image of God found in the creation story.
To the degree that feminism has as it's goal women being free, I agree with it. But I'm not sure adding the word "Christian" is enough to warrant embracing either the word feminism or patriarchalism because they both come with cultural baggage that is in contradistinction to the biblical message.
So I have the same problem using either one.
Yes,Paul! The cultural baggage, as with other issues, IS the problem, and often the weak link prior to failure, for struggling believers, especially new ones.
Wade:
Do you believe the SBC has as big a problem with the abuses of authority prior to the TAKEOVER?
Wade, thanks to you and your Dad, again. Most of all thanks for going directly to the scriptures for the answers, the scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit. The scriptures resisted and twisted by those who in pretense of humility have sought "authority over" God's redeemed sons and daughters. They forget, or may never have even seen who our big brother Jesus really is. The lamb slain, but also the Lion of Judah, the root of David, who prevailed.
Fob James 3
Secular feminism is not biblical feminism. Feminism is about giving women equal opportunity. Patriarchalism is not about giving men equal opportunity. Maybe you were thinking of matriarchalism.
Mabel,
Good point.
Secular feminism is what I was referring to, not biblical equality.
Thanks.
I'm with Gingkelstinker on this. I've a 10 year old daughter that would do the same as that boy did... Free of culture, free of gender, free of generational prejudice... Just speaking the truth. Thank you, Charlie
We know the KJV/AV translation of the Bible in 1611 was orientated toward the English culture of the day, and to the politico-religious situation that existed at the time. King James required these interest groups to be accommodated, hence the slipping in of words like 'bishop' and 'king' . Wycliffe's earlier translation of 'ecclesia' as meaning 'congregation', was also dropped in favour of 'church'. This conveniently re-enforced the view of an institutional structure of spiritual body of Christ. It shifted the emphasis to a building and to those who perform the rituals and rites of the religion. The King would be sacredly anointed by the Bishops into his 'divine right' to rule the nation, and in return the Church of England would legally be recognised as the State Church. I have looked up your White Paper verses in a modern, source orientated, non -English translation and found them to confirm the correctness of your understanding of authority and leadership among believers. The bottom line is.... all we need is Jesus.
Ginklestinker,
Great comment.
Wade:
Do you have any thoughts on my question?
Wade:
Do you believe the SBC had as big a problem with the abuses of authority prior to the TAKEOVER?
Tom,
I really don't have any thoughts on the subject. Sorry for missing your question.
Wade and Paul,
Your white paper was very good! I took the time to print it on 9 pages and give a copy to the deacons and pastor of our church. The pastor and some deacons that had time to respond all agreed.
I have a problem with: “The Bible defines the church of Jesus Christ as a living body of believers who are wed to Christ.”
To me there’s a difference between ‘bride’ and ‘wife’ with ‘wife’ indicating sex. To be “wed to Christ” sounds more like being a ‘wife’ to Christ which I’d believe you’d not agree at all. I’d rather be thought of as a Child of the King.
Tom Parker,
After the TAKEOVER, I heard one guy complain at a SBC that he was being treated just as BEFORE.
Wade and Paul,
With a sense of hesitancy because of how this may be received I do desire to make a couple of comments please. First, thank you for obviously presenting a well researched and carefully written white paper on such a tender but vital subject. Having had to present so many white papers from a military and corporate perspective I do understand the task before you and compliment you on a job well done. However, and this is my second point, with a white paper usually comes application or examples taking your point of emphasis and perhaps peeling the onion more if you will. I have no disagreement with your stated biblical position on authority and embrace it totally. What I would have liked to have seen was more regarding proper leadership as a result of a true understanding of Biblical authority. Let me assure you that even though one may have a worldly title or position of authority does not make them a leader nor does one with a biblical perspective of authority make them an effective leader within the church. I would argue there is tremendous void of godly leadership within the church today. You have churches run by committees and the only other example of that is our Congress and you see the result. Finally, and my apologies for the length of my response, the major benefit of just reading your research and being reminded of the importance of Scripture for authority and clarity (Psalm 119: 18)is deeply appreciated. I hope to see another white paper in the future. You have set a positive precedent. Blessings
Steve Miller
Steve Miller,
Excellent comment.
We decided to leave the outworking of "what this looks like in the local church" to various churches. We may write a practical paper later!
Wade,
“…I will build my church and all the powers of hell will not conquer it” (Matthew 16:18 NLT), and many places say we are the body of Christ, but what Scripture says we are the “Bride of Christ” or that we are “wed to Christ”?
http://cdacoffee.hubpages.com/hub/Who-Is-The-Bride-of-Christ
The link above makes a good point on the issue.
Great link, Rex. Thanks.
Steve,
As always, as I've said to you before on my blog, I'd rather read your comments more than my post. This is only verified with this comment.
Wade and Paul:
Your paper reminds me of the greatest promise in the New Testament which is also the greatest promise in the Old Testament:
Hebrews 10:16 (HCSB)
"This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, says the Lord:
I will put My laws on their hearts
and write them on their minds,"
I read the link on the church not being the Bride of Christ, and I think perhaps it is taking the metaphors too literally/exclusively. I think based on Eph. 5:31-32, the "mystery" of Christ's coming unity with the church is definitely presented in terms of an upcoming marriage, and since it compares metaphorically the husband-wife relationship to a head-body relationship, there is no reason to believe the church cannot be both the Bride and the Body of Christ. Yes, Revelation presents the Holy Jerusalem as the Bride of Christ, but also implies strongly that the Heavenly Jerusalem is where the saints will reside-- which means the saints are the City. See Rev. 22:14-- and also note that throughout the prophetic books of the Old Testament, and when Jesus prophesies about cities in the New Testament, a "city" is not a set of mere walls and buildings, but the body of people who live in it.
I do, however, disagree that "we are wed to Christ." The one-flesh union of Christ and the church is a "mystery" according to Eph. 5:32, which means it is something that has not yet been fully revealed-- and being the "Bride" is not the same as being the "wife." The church is betrothed but not yet married to Christ. 2 Cor. 11:2.
And it is not individual believers, but the church as a whole, which is to be wed to Him. Nowhere is the individual believer spoken of as going to be married to Christ, but only churches as groups.
That's my take on it.
PS. I do not believe the pictures of one parable are meant to be applied across all other pictures or representations throughout the New Testament. Jesus in one parable speaks of us as being guests at the marriage supper, and at another He speaks of us as being servants waiting in another room while the Master and guests are at supper. Each parable is to be read on its own.
So just because we are guests in these parables does not preclude us also being the Bride herself in Revelation. Jesus can be the Lamb and also the Lion, and also the Groom. All the pictures are meant to point to something bigger than they are actually capable of describing, so more than one picture is ok.
Romans 7:4 speaks, in context, to our relationship with the law. We are dead to it as one partner who dies is dead to the other partner in a marriage. The law didn't die here, we did.
Now we are wed, in union, with another, as in a marriage This is like having a new partner as in a new marriage. The figure of marriage is here but must not be pressed.
The real point of analogy is the termination of relations to an old state and the reality of a new state for the believer which brings forth a different fruit. Thus our statement here, "The Bible defines the church of Jesus Christ as a living body of believers who are wed to Christ."
The rest of the paper is an attempt to show the kind of new or different fruit is brought about by this new and different union with Christ for all believers with one another. To press the marriage analogy beyond this is not necessary and perhaps even unwise with regards to proper interpretation of scripture about our union with Christ at present.
Paul - thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.
Mr. Burleson,
Like your previous article, I take exception to this one, as well. There are several doctrinal errors in the PDF file, but a cursory check of the lexicons in which the Greek words are found are enough to prove that there is a problem with the entire article’s content. To wit:
Acts 20:28. The PDF says, This little Greek word “en” translated “over” in Acts 20:28 is used 2,700 times in the New Testament and is nowhere else translated “over.”
Larry says: The Greek word “en”, is not in question, Mr. Burleson, but “episkopos” is. This is defined by Thayer as “the superintendent, elder, or overseer of a Christian church”.
Tit. 3:1. The PDF says, “...the word office is not present in I Timothy 3:1, and the word bishop is the single Greek word, episkopos which means to tend or to oversee. So the word office was incorrectly placed in the verse and the word bishop was used to translate oversee, because the translators had bishops in King James’ The Mistaken Notion of the Office of Pastor No Office of Pastor 18v day, and it seems that King James and his men wished to maintain their hierarchical positions of authority in the church.”
Larry says: The Greek word episkopē is defined as: b) oversight 1) overseership, OFFICE (emp. mine), charge, the OFFICE OF AN ELDER (emp. mine) 2) the overseer or presiding OFFICERS (emp. mine) of a Christian church. In addition, the very next verse says, “A bishop then…”. Which is the same Greek word that is used in Acts 20:28 for superintendent.
Eph. 5:21. The PDF says, One might ask, “But what about the passages that refer to the husband being the ‘head over the wife’?” The English word “head” (see Ephesians 5:23 & I Corinthians 11:3) comes from a Greek word that is not generally used to convey the concept of authority over. It is the Greek word kephale (pronounced kef-a-lay) and its most common usage in everyday Greek is that of source or beginnings. Our English word “head” can convey the meaning of source as well. For example, “the head waters of a river” means the source or the beginning of a river. Knowing that kephale has a different meaning than exousia is important to properly interpret texts like Ephesians 5:23 and I Corinthians 11:3 where the word kephale is used and translated into English as head. However, regardless of how one chooses to translate kephale, either as authority or source, scripturally there is only one Head over any person in the church and that Head is Jesus Christ.
Larry says: while the Greek word may, as the PDF says, “…convey the meaning of source… that is not generally used to convey the concept of authority over…” the Greek lexicons say otherwise. They define the word as: 2) metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church. Further, 1 Cor.11:3 explicitly says that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man…”. Kephale is used in this text three times in this text identically, and without distinction, as to the meaning of the word (Compare the use of the Greek word “dead” in Matt. 8:22). If a husband does not have authority over the wife, as the Bible says, then neither does Christ have authority over the church (Matt 28:20).
Now, if the authors of the PDF handled the Greek as sloppily as they did in the preceding examples, how can anything else in the document be trusted? But dont take my word for it. Look for yourself at such resources as blueletterbible.com.
While you wrote “..the major problem in the evangelical church is authoritarianism”, I’ll suggest to you that this is not the case. The problem is a rebellious spirit to authority in general, in the hearts of men (2 Pet. 2:10; 1 Sam. 15:23). As Jesus said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt 15:8-9).
Sam, Kristen, Don John, James, Mabel, Ginklestinker, Miller, Greg, and Larry,
Thank you for your ideas. You represent those that speak their minds without looking for the approval of others.
I’m 80, and was named after my 30 year Chinese’s missionary uncle. His son, Dan Ray took over his work in Korea for 39 years.
Dan had a philosophy that I disagreed with, but as time goes by, I believe he’s right. He said, “I never argue “words” in the Bible.”
Those that believe in “inerrancy” will disagree with him. When errors such as this White Paper have pointed out in the King James, the Inerrantists retreat to the ORIGINALS that don’t exists.
I believe whatever is true in the Bible came from God and any untruth did not such as demanding Gentiles to obey the Jewish law to be saved. (Acts 15)
The brother of Jesus and elders told Paul, “You know, dear brother, how many thousands of Jews have also believed, and they all follow the law of Moses very seriously.” (Acts 21:20 NLT)
What was the thinking of “authority” in the early church?
The first bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, (who I believe gave Paul a hard time; and was probably appointed by the Jerusalem Church with the approval of the pastor of course to get/keep those heathen Christians in line) had this to say:
“We ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.” (Wheaton College Library)
Nuff said.
P.S.
Hey Paul,
How about that paper you were going to write on how Catholics got started in the early church. You remember…the one to ‘straighten’ mine out? :)
Larry,
I appreciate your comment and while disagreeing with your assessment of our work as being "sloppily" done, I will also just have to continue with my understanding of the word "bishop"as meaning to "oversee", "to tend to" as having no implication of office held but a ministry performed. This because Vines says, "Episkopos, lit., an overseer (epi, over, skopeo, to look or watch.) In other words, one who ministers by overseeing.
So I would see episkopos as meaning, in the context of the Church, a caregiver and not a superintendent. A ministry done and not an office held.
The verse in 1st Timothy 3:1 I see the same way.
"Episkopos" in no way refers to an authoritarian position within the Body but is, rather, a description of how certain gifted people who are mature and express that gifted maturity in selfless and godly care for all in the fellowship of believers.
This is not done as lords but servants and our follow-ship is not unquestioned obedience but an observant weighing of their maturity and giftedness.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
I could also give you my resources on Kephale having studied and researched every passage and source you've mentioned with a lens as to the Greek language and it's original meaning to that culture.
But I'll leave that for another day.
Larry,
"While you wrote “..the major problem in the evangelical church is authoritarianism”, I’ll suggest to you that this is not the case. The problem is a rebellious spirit to authority in general, in the hearts of men (2 Pet. 2:10; 1 Sam. 15:23). As Jesus said, “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt 15:8-9)."
I would suggest it would be helpful to quote verses that support your notion that the problem is a spirit of rebellion toward authority in general.
I agree that their is a rebellious spirit toward Christ in general, but until you can prove that their are vicars of Christ on earth, whose authority is His authority, I submit to you that you follow those gifted servant leaders who love you, rather than any person in an alleged position of authority who demands submission to them.
Police forces, government officials, and others who exert power and force submission are entities unlike the church. Jesus said, "It shall NOT be so among you" in terms of exerting authority."
Larry: Biases can certainly appear in lexicons. Translators are not free from the tendency to view the Greek words with their own understandings of things like "offices" and authority in mind.
With regards to "kephale," there is actually a difference between "supreme/prominent" and "in authority over." The first meaning has to do with position. The second meaning has to do with power and right. From all my study of this word, it did convey the first meaning, but the second was not part of it meaning except by implication. In other words, the prominent one, the one in the top position, was often also the one in authority-- but the word "kephale" did not actually convey the meaning "in authority" directly. If you read the whole book of Ephesians and not just the fifth chapter, it becomes apparent that what Christ does as "kephale" of the church is two things: 1) He raises her up to sit beside him, so that she, unlike every other thing, is not under His feet (chapter 1) and 2) He is the source of provision and nourishment for her (chapter 4). Christ is in authority over the church, as set forth in other places in Scripture-- but "authority over" really isn't the meaning being conveyed by the word "kephale." Rather, it means the one positionally in the prominent place, who lays down his position in order to raise her up and make her glorious beside him. Just so were husbands, given the prominent place in society by their world and culture, to lay down their position to raise their wives up, and also to nourish and provide for the wife, who had no means of supporting herself apart from a man.
To turn the beautiful picture of self-sacrifice and raising up to glorious oneness portrayed in Ephesians 5, and turn it into a support for male power, is to misunderstand and misapply the whole spirit of the Epistle.
In the same way, Christ made it plain we are not to take positions of authority over one another in His kingdom, but rather to take the position of the slave who washes feet. This focus on "offices" and authority in the church has been going on since about the first or second century AD, and has been reflected in the lexicons. Isn't it time we let go of these things and got back to what Christ actually taught?
Beautifully said, Kristen.
I agree Victorious.
As to my "another day" promise to deal with "Kephale," Kristen has removed any desire I have.
Well done Kirsten. And NOT because you've said it all because, you and I both know much more could be said. But because you've said it so clearly, concisely, with the text of scripture as the guide in the context of this post. No one I've read has done better. As I said, well done!
*blushes*
Thanks, both of you.
Wade, Kristen & Paul,
Well done!
Mr. Burleson:
I can only give Bible verses that describe what rebellion to authority is. I cannot give verses showing specifics concerning any current event happening today. That will have to be done based on personal experience and analyzing the culture in which you and I live.
I have not tried to prove that the Bible authorizes “vicars”. All I have shown are verses that show there may be elders in a church, and those elders do have a certain amount of authority in the affairs of a local congregation.
Titus 1:5-8 & 1 Tim. 3-5 gives qualifications concerning elders in the local church. A couple of them being that he be the “husband of one wife” and that he rule his own household well. If it is true that there is no office of an elder intended, and that all Christians are equal in this sense, then why are those specific instructions there and what is the inherent difference between an elder and a Christian?
I agree that it is wrong for overseers to behave like CEO’s. But it is equally wrong to teach that no position or authority for an elder exists.
Kristen:
Biases can appear in lexicons. But this fact alone does not prove a particular definition unreliable. If that were the case, I might as well throw my Bible in the trash and do what I feel is right. In addition, every person alive has some kind of bias that colors their viewpoint toward any given subject. But this likewise does not prove the bias right or wrong in itself.
As Christ is subject to the Father in heaven, so is the woman subject to the man in marriage and members of a local congregation subject to the leadership of the elders.
You said that kephale “…means the one positionally in the prominent place, who lays down his position in order to raise her up and make her glorious beside him." But Christ did not give up “his position” or his authority by doing so. He retained the position and exalted it to place the Father intended it to be. In the position of an elder, it may be misused for things other than what God intended (3 John 9-10), but the abuse does not necessarily eliminate the position itself, nor is it proof that the authority that inherently goes along with it is nonexistent.
As said before, 1 Cor.11:3 explicitly says that “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man…”. Kephale is used three times in this text identically, and without distinction, as to the meaning of the word (Compare the use of the Greek word “dead” in Matt. 8:22). If a husband does not have authority over the wife, as the Bible says, then neither does Christ have authority over the church (Matt 28:20). If not, why not?
Kristen,
You said, “This focus on "offices" and authority in the church has been going on since about the first or second century AD…”
After much discussion/debate between the Christian Pharisees saying Gentiles had to obey the Jewish Law and Peter saying all men were saved by the gift of Jesus, one man gave HIS ‘judgment’:
“…James stood and said, “Brothers, listen to me…my judgment is that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.” (Acts 15: 13-20 NLT)
Kristen, do you thank the Burleson’s White Paper was the rule in Acts 15?
(Paul spent the rest of his life fighting that keeping food laws were not necessary.)
A decision was made in this link:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2010_06_01_archive.html
The point is not whether the decision was right or wrong, but was the White Paper followed?
I’ll bet no one will answer even though there were 178 comments on the post.
Larry-- If "kephale" is a word limited in scope, and there are other words used to describe Christ's relationship with the church that are not used to describe a man's relationship with his wife, then "kephale" not meaning "authority" does not mean Christ is not in authority over the church. In fact, Christ is called "Lord" of the church, while a man is never called "lord" of his wife. There is a passage that says Sarah called her husband "lord," but the context is how Christians living in pagan lands should live under pagan systems of human authority. There is no passage that says, "husbands, God has made you lords of your wives." There is no passage that says, "husbands, you are your wives's saviors" either, even though there are plenty of passages that say Christ is Savior of the church. How can you say that everything Christ is to the church, a husband is to his wife?
Rex, at the beginning of this discussion I made a distinction between leadership (the act of leading or position of being a leader) and authority (the right and power to be the leader). I am not disputing that there are, and have been, leaders of the church raised up by God. What I am disputing is that there is a God-given "office" that has inherent authority, or that leaders are supposed to consider themselves to have some sort of God-given authority inherent in themselves, rather than just acting in obedience to God as servants to the church.
As for what James said-- the question arises as to whether everyone went along with him because he was the authority who called the shots-- or because everyone recognized that he was speaking by the Spirit of God? I think it was the latter. James was a leader of the church, recognized as gifted in that by the Spirit. But Jesus specifically said no one was to take power and authority in the church-- and I don't believe James did.
PS. Larry, as to the lexicons-- the fact remains that in the verses using the word translated "overseer" there is simply no word present that means "office" or anything like "office." If the lexicon writers want to add something that isn't in the original text, I do not feel obligated to listen to them.
Kristin, you said: If "kephale" is a word limited in scope, and there are other words used to describe Christ's relationship with the church that are not used to describe a man's relationship with his wife, then "kephale" not meaning "authority" does not mean Christ is not in authority over the church.
Larry says: In like fashion, neither does this statement prove that there is no authority inherent with an elder that is over a local church. You wrote, “How can you say that everything Christ is to the church, a husband is to his wife?” This is your argument, but I wrote, “As Christ is subject to the Father in heaven, so is the woman subject…” A likeness does not equal exactness (Gen 1:26).
Kristin said: James was a leader of the church, recognized as gifted in that by the Spirit. But Jesus specifically said no one was to take power and authority in the church-- and I don't believe James did.
Larry says: Peter was an elder in the church (1 Pet. 5:1) as well as an apostle. We know that he had a wife (Matt. 8:14), thus was qualified to be an elder, per the applicable Bible texts. Peter had authority as an apostle to give the word of God that Christians everywhere had to obey as the Spirit directed (1 Cor. 4:17), yet he did not have authority to regulate the meeting times and customs of churches everywhere – except in the church where he labored (1 Cor. 11:16). Why? Because his authority as an apostle was different than his authority in the eldership in the church in which he was over (1 Pet. 5:2). Peter did not have the same kind of power as an elder, but he did have a likeness of it. So your premise has not been proven.
Kristin: I neglected to add that your statement concerning Jesus saying “no one was to take power and authority” is a reference to Mark 10:43. However, Jesus is clearly not denying authority in this passage; rather, He is emphasizing a different type of authority than his questioners understood (Ye know not what you ask – Mark 10:38). This is evident when He draws a parallel with himself: “whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:44-45) This is, in part, why I made a reference to 1 Cor. 11:3 and questioned the logical consistency concerning the position you and Mr. Burleson have taken.
Larry, I forgot to say last night that with regards to this:
"But Christ did not give up “his position” or his authority by doing so. He retained the position and exalted it to place the Father intended it to be."
You are quite mistaken. He laid down the position and then received it back again. That is the whole story of the gospel. He gave up His position when He did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking on the form of a servant, and becoming obedient even to the lowliest form of death-- death on a cross. Philippians 2:6-8. Christ laid it ALL down-- authority, power, position, everything. He Who was One with the Father became "a little lower than the angels." Hebrews 2:9.
But as for Christ being subject to the Father in Heaven-- I assume you are speaking of the ESS doctrine - eternal subordination of the Son-- which I wholly disagree with. The Trinity of the Godhead was of eternity past of One Will, Mind and Heart. Submission only makes sense, only has meaning, when there are two wills involved-- and there were not two wills until Christ was in human flesh and had a human will in addition to the Divine. Christ was subject to the Father on earth, but now, according again to Phil. 2, has been exalted to the highest place-- in other words, He has reclaimed His equality with the Father once again.
I have written a blog post addressing this if you are interested.
http://krwordgazer.blogspot.com/2012/01/bible-and-human-authority-part-3-great.html
As for the verses you have quoted about Peter's authority as an elder and apostle-- all I can say is that you certainly are reading a lot into verses that appear to me to say nothing of the kind. Apostles ministered in the authority of Christ, according to Matthew 28:18-19. All authority is Christ's in the church. Christians are not to exercise it over one another, but to act as servants. Jesus when He washed the disciples' feet was acting as a servant. That's how He wants all of us to act.
"Larry says: Peter was an elder in the church (1 Pet. 5:1) as well as an apostle. We know that he had a wife (Matt. 8:14), thus was qualified to be an elder, per the applicable Bible texts. Peter had authority as an apostle to give the word of God that Christians everywhere had to obey as the Spirit directed (1 Cor. 4:17), yet he did not have authority to regulate the meeting times and customs of churches everywhere – except in the church where he labored (1 Cor. 11:16). Why? Because his authority as an apostle was different than his authority in the eldership in the church in which he was over (1 Pet. 5:2). Peter did not have the same kind of power as an elder, but he did have a likeness of it. So your premise has not been proven."
It surprises me how many times the word authority and/or power are used in the statement above in reference to elders and apostles. Maybe I am the only one bothered by this?
When I read all of 1 Peter chapter 2 and 1 Cor. chapter 5 (and 1 Cor. 11 for that matter) I see a totally different perspective than one of authority and power.
"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." Jesus
There are places where Jesus gives authority to others, but he appears to be specific as to what that authority is to be used for. In other places Jesus is specific about how "not" to lead.
If I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, aren't all the teachings of Jesus for me to do and teach as well? Where does an "office" come in to the scenario? Aren't elders the older believers of good character, who have put aside their foolish ways, and will teach the younger believers in their locale with soundness and balance?
The more I read the more I am convinced that most churches (institutions?) today are businesses . . . to the point of choosing the highly educated (not the same as able to teach), hip, charismatic, young man to be pastors (their word) and elders. These are not qualifictions for an elder and are contrary to the sound wisdom of Scripture.
Kristen:
Phil. 2:6-8 and Heb 2:9 speak of Christ making Himself the form of a servant, made in the likeness of men and a little lower than the angels. Just because he became obedient even unto death does not prove he released his position of authority. There are several passages that declare his authority while on earth (Matt 7:29; 8:27; 21:23-24, Mark 1:22-27; 13:34; Luke 4:36; 20:2-8; etc.). His teachings and works were evidence He did have authority on earth; even His enemies could see this. Why can’t you (John 10:32-33)?
You speak of Christ having one will and the Father having another. Yet, there is no evidence of this in scripture. Jesus and the Father have always been one, yet Christ has always been subject to the Father. This was true before he came to earth in the form of a man; Jesus must have obeyed the father in order for Him to be sent (John 8:18), he obeyed during his time in the world (Luke 22:42) and is subordinate now (1 Cor. 11:3). This is the same in principle as the charge given to the Corinthian church to be joined together in the same mind and judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Christians are subordinate to God’s Word, yet at the same time in fellowship with God.
At any rate, this is a distraction to the clear statements given to elders and their work assigned to them in the local church.
Speaking of authoritarianism does anyone know why Adrian Rogers Pastor Training Institute's 501(c)3status was revoked. There are watchdogs who report Steve Gaines when he wipes his nose but will not post on the possible bad accountability of PTI. does anyone know why their status was revoked?
Larry,
I will admit that Christ's giving up of authority was in two stages, even as Philippians 2 states-- first giving up equality with God in order to be human; then as a man, humbling Himself and becoming obedient to the point of a criminal's death. Between those times, Christ did act with the authority the Father had given Him as the Messiah.
But Ephesians 5 is about how Christ laid down His life and gave Himself for the church-- which is referring to the second stage, the stage of complete giving up of power and authority. But if Christ did not give up His high position, then how does it make sense to say that afterwards the Father exalted Him? How can you exalted someone who is already at the highest level of exaltation?
Can you not see that Ephesians 5 is about men giving themselves up as Christ did? The Ephesians 5 verses are simply not about the exercise of authority.
But since you say that Jesus and the Father are eternally of one Will, then you cannot also say that Jesus is eternally obedient to the Father. The two statements are self-contradictory. You cannot be obeying someone if you are acting on your own will and volition in doing the thing they are telling you to do! Obedience only makes sense when there is a difference in wills. You are not really saying, are you, that Jesus didn't want to come to earth, that He only came because the Father ordered Him to? The Father sending the Son doesn't mean the Son didn't also come of His own accord. See John 12:27 and 18:37.
Obedience becomes non-coherent when Both are in full agreement. And the only time They were not in full agreement is when Christ was suffering as a human. If His will was even then in full agreement, how could He have said, "Not My will, but Yours be done"?
As for 1 Cor 11:3 -- this is not a verse about subordination, but about origins, as the rest of the context of 1 Cor. 11 makes clear. Jesus is not eternally subordinate to the Father. That is not the historical doctrine or creed of the Trinity. For Jesus to be in a state of eternal subordination to the Father, would ultimately mean that the Son and the Father are not One, because the Son would always be of a different nature-- a subordinate nature-- to the Father. You'd have two gods, not One Trinity.
The link I provided earlier details my position on all of this with more clarity and scripture analysis. I'd like you to read it before proceeding further.
Kristen,
I can’t accept that Christ gave up his authority at any point in time. Or that He limited His deity while on earth as a man. Here are some of the verses that prove this:
John 1:1-2; 10-14. The Bible says God became flesh.
John 5:16-18. In these verses, Jesus makes Himself equal with God. His enemies understood exactly what Jesus was saying; thus their desire to kill him.
John 8:56-59. Jesus says He is the I AM, the same phrase God used in Exodus 3:14. This is in the accordance with the eternal nature of God.
Based on these passages, the claim that the Son gave up equality with God when He became a man cannot be true.
You asked, “But if Christ did not give up His high position, then how does it make sense to say that afterwards the Father exalted Him? How can you exalt someone who is already at the highest level of exaltation?” He was not exalted before his death on the cross. So, in order to answer this properly, in what sense Christ was exalted must be asked. Acts 5:31 – “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Jesus was exalted in the sense that He now is able to give us salvation by obeying His commands, through the blood that was shed; whereas before His exaltation (resurrection after death), there was no salvation or forgiveness of sins through Jesus.
I maintain that Ephesians 5 contains instructions showing husbands how to love their wives, which includes the fact that the husband is indeed the head of the wife. The husband's example toward the wife in this sense should be just as Christ's was, that He gave us an example that we should walk in His steps, no matter what position of authority we may be in (1 Pet. 2:21).
You said that Jesus could not be obedient to the Father if there was only one will, and the reason for this is because a) obedience only makes sense when there is a difference of wills, b) He only came because the Father ordered him to, and c) If His will was even then in full agreement, How could He have said, Not My will, but Yours?” Answers are listed below.
a) Actually, the end result of acting on a will that differs from the Father is one of disobedience (Matt. 21:28-31). Jesus was tempted in the flesh (Matt. 4), yet consistently obeyed the will of the Father (1 John 2:17). He knew no sin (1 Cor. 5:21), thus He made his divine will align with the Father’s in every act He did. In this sense, Jesus and the Father’s will is one and has always been one. In addition, I know of no passage in the Bible that speaks of the wills of God (plural). They are all singular, to my knowledge.
b) Rev. 1:5 says that Jesus loved (agape) us and has washed us from our sins in His own blood. I am sure you know the meaning of agape, so I won’t go into much detail here. In short, Jesus came because His will matched the Father’s, and loved us when we should have been condemned (Rom. 3:23).
c) I believe this was answered in bullet a).
If 1 Cor. 11:3 was speaking of origins, Paul should have used a different word to describe it. There are too many other verses in scripture that use this Greek word head as one in a position of authority. In addition, the lexicons state this Greek word is only used in two senses – either a physical head (1 Cor. 12:21), or a position of prominence (Col. 2:10, 1:18; Eph. 5:23, 4:15; Acts 4:11). I see no reason to assume it means anything different in this context. Especially Paul’s statements concerning woman being created for the man (1 Cor. 11:9; cp. 1 Tim. 2:13-14, Gen. 3:16 -- …he shall rule over thee).
As a side note, I have read some of your material on your blog. Based on what I've seen, I don’t believe it would be profitable to proceed any further. So I’ll end my discussion with this post. I thank you for your time. Have a great day.
Larry
Kristen,
Thanks for not ignoring me. I guess that hurts the most about blogs.
You said,
“As for what James said-- the question arises as to whether everyone went along with him because he was the authority who called the shots-- or because everyone recognized that he was speaking by the Spirit of God? I think it was the latter.”
Kristen, do you ever wonder about people that say, “God told me etc.” ? I think they use that expression to back up a weak argument/discussion.
In the case of James’ judgment, his first reasoning was tradition:
“For these laws of Moses have been preached in Jewish synagogues in every city on every Sabbath for many generations.” (Acts 15:21 NLT)
And if tradition wasn’t enough to prove his food laws, he nailed it with:
“For it was the HOLY SPIRIT’S DECISION—and ours—to put no greater BURDEN on you than these NECESSARY things—that you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from eating anything that has been strangled, and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:28 Holman)
The question is: WHO was the Holy Spirit speaking through when Peter said:
“So why are you challenging God by BURDENING the Gentile believers with a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear? We believe that we are all saved the same way by the undeserved grace of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 15:10-11 NLT)
I believe Burleson’s White Paper gives the answer:
“the right to eat food offered to idols (see I Corinthians 8:9-11), but better yet is what Jesus said:
“It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” (Matthew 15:11 NLT)
Was the Holy Spirit against a big burden but OK with a small burden on the Gentiles?
Rex, I'm sure you'll agree that being led by the Spirit doesn't negate also using reason, and logical supports for one's decisions. As for the "small burden" placed on the Gentile Christians, it is my understanding that in historical context, the things being prohibited were all related to pagan idol-worship practices, and abstaining from these things would be necessary to help the young Gentiles make a real break from paganism. This was why they were necessary-- and in another context--among another group of Gentiles with different practices, for instance-- they might not have been. In fact, we don't see these same instructions being repeated in all the letters to those churches that were primarily Gentile, so I think the instructions were case-specific and thus did not amount to new Torah.
Larry, I appreciated the conversation, and your graciousness.
Kristen,
I agree that “using reason and logical supports for one’s decisions” is very important in “being led by the Spirit”,
You said “…in historical context, the things being prohibited were all related to pagan idol-worship practices…”
Are you implying these were NOT the Law of Moses or God’s Laws?
The history of why the first church counsel existed was:
“While Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch of Syria, some men from Judea arrived and began to teach the believers: “Unless you are circumcised as required by the Law of Moses, YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.” (Acts 15:1 NLT)
“When Peter came to Antioch…he ate with the Gentile Christians…But afterward when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.” (Galatians 2:11-12 NLT)
‘…the church decided to send Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem…to talk to the apostles and elders about THIS QUESTION.” (Acts 15 2 NLT)
Kristen, the QUESTION was the most important in the Bible:
HOW IS MAN SAVED?
The Christian Gentiles anxiously waited the answer.
James’ answer was a win-win for everyone because of confusion. (The devil loves confusion.)
Maybe Paul and Co. looked upon the rules as a RESULT of being saved; while the Christian Pharisees (maybe the same friends of James) looked upon the rules as NECESSARY for being saved.
Kristen, you said “the things prohibited were all related to pagan idol-worship practices, and abstaining from these things would be necessary to help the young Gentiles make a real break from paganism.”
Is ever new Christian given a list of sins they can’t do to help them make a break from sinning? I don’t recall ever being given a list; do you?
Rex, what it looks like to me is that confronted with "do Gentiles have to be circumcized according to the Law to be saved?" James-- by answering, "All we're going to do is ask you to do those things in the Law of Moses that will keep you away from your pagan idol-worship"-- was answering resoundingly, "No! It is not necessary to obey the Law of Moses to be saved! All we want you to do is show that you're serious by turning away from your idols."
As far as Christians nowadays not being given a list like this, is it really appropriate to compare along those lines? Christianity is not a new religion, trying to figure out what it's supposed to be, any more. We are not pagans hearing about Jesus in a culture that has never had anything to do with Judeo-Christian ethics.
I don't think reducing the whole Acts sequence there to "No, you don't have to be circumcized but you still have to obey a portion of the Law" is an accurate depiction of what was going on. It was about Jesus v. paganism. That's all.
In my faith, is taught to us, this:
"Deep within his conscience,
man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey.
Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . .
For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . .
His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary.
There he is alone
with God Whose Voice echoes in his depths."
'Authority' may teach, it may offer guidance, and give direction, but for a Christian person, no 'authority' can ever take the place of his or her own moral conscience.
My faith also teaches this:
Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."
For many who are not of my faith, there is little or no recognition of the supreme importance of informed 'conscience' as moral guide, within the whole tradition of mainstream Christianity.
Kristen,
What you wrote is very very GOOD!
It’s too bad you were not at the First Church Counsel to convince the Christian Pharisees of this.
Your words should have been in the letter to the Gentiles, but they weren’t, They figured if a little Law was good, then more was better as shown in Galatians.
“Man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”
Do you think the Law ‘Demanders’ rolled over and died?
If everyone believed as you ‘told them’ why do you think this Scripture was written?:
“…You know, dear brother, how many thousands of Jews have also believed, and THEY ALL FOLLOW THE LAW OF MOSES VERY SERIOUSLY.” (Acts 21:20)
“…THEY ARE ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW. (Holman & KJ)
Who do you think took over the Church when James and the Apostles were gone? If they thought as you, they would NOT have started baptizing babies for salvation etc.
Rex-- Thanks!
As for the implications of the verses you quoted-- I think that then, as now, there was a conflict between those who believed God was establishing an inclusive faith, and those who wanted it to be exclusive. Between those who wanted to let people in, and those who wanted to keep people out.
Hey Wade, will you release a Works Cited or Bibliography?
"But I'm not sure adding the word "Christian" is enough to warrant embracing either the word feminism or patriarchalism because they both come with cultural baggage that is in contradistinction to the biblical message." -Paul Burleson
Here is my problem, Paul. I have no desire to embrace the word, because of the baggage. But when someone ask: "Are you a feminist" I have to admit that, because of the dictionary meaning of the word ("belief in the social, political and economical equality of the sexes and activity towards that goal") I am indeed what the dictionary descibe as a feminist. If they say my blog is a Christian feminist blog, I have no defense either. Because, by the dictionary, I am.
http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/why-i-hate-the-word-feminist/
But even those like you and Wade who do not oppose egalitarians disparage the term, and all the disparaging from both friends and enemies make life harder for us who cannot (by the dictionary) deny they are "feminists."
SPIRITUAL SUICIDE
In 1955 James Warren Jones founded the "People's Temple" (purportedly a Christian congregation)in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Jonestown , Guyana November 18, 1978. Jim Jones and 900 of his followers committed mass suicide. Jim Jones had previously proclaimed to his people that they did not need the Bible. He told them all they needed was him. He then ripped the Bible and threw it to the ground.
The authority for the "Peoples Temple" was the tradition set by the church, Jim Jones was the church authority. Had the followers of Jim Jones accepted the Bible, and the Bible alone as their authority, there would not have been a mass suicide. The spiritual suicide came first.
Following man-made tradition can lead to spiritual suicide.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3 men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
Jim Jones was a liar when he told his congregation they did not need the Bible. Are men telling the truth when they says church tradition is the final authority for faith and practice? Do men teach truth when they assert that new books of revelation are from God and they supersede the authority of the Bible.
Do church catechisms, creed books, statements of faith, so-call books of new revelation from God, and other books written by men, annul, displace, supplant or supersede the authority of the Bible?
Mark 7:7-8 'But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. 8 Neglecting the commandments of God, you hold to the traditions of men."
Those who deny that God's word is found in the Bible and the Bible alone have a tendency to invent their own doctrines.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God....
Was Jim Jones inspired by God when he said his followers did not need the Bible? There are those who claim church catechisms are the evolution of God's word, are they inspired by God? When men announce that their new books of revelation annul or supplant the Bible, are they inspired my God? If you honestly believe that creed books should be the authority of your church congregation, are you being inspired by God?
TRUST THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE AND YOU WILL NOT HAVE WORRY ABOUT COMMITTING SPIRITUAL SUICIDE!
(All Scripture quotes from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY CHRISTIAN BLOG. Google search>>> steve finnell a christian view
TRUTH AND AUTHORITY? BY STEVE FINNELL
Where should Christians look for God's authoritative truth? Should it be the Bible? Should it be the church of your choice or the church you belong to by chance?
The Bible was completed in 95 A.D. when the apostle John wrote Revelation. Who wrote the Bible? Was it God or was it the church?
John 14:24-26 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent me. (THE WORDS JESUS SPOKE WERE FROM GOD THE FATHER) 25 "These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all the I said to you.
The words of Jesus were from God the Father and He said that The Father would send the apostles the Holy Spirit so they could remember all that He said. The words of the apostles were God's word, their words were Scripture, their words are the Bible.
In, John 14:24-26, Jesus was not talking to the Pope, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Billy Graham, Joesph Smith Jr, Mary Baker Eddy, cardinals, bishops, elders, so-called modern day apostles, preachers, pastors, nor any one claiming to speak for God. If the church or theses men as individuals, were speaking for God by new revelation, then, we would have added books to the Bible. There would the books of the Popes, the book of John Calvin, the book of Billy Graham, the books of elders, the books of churches, the book of Joesph Smith Jr. etc.
THE BIBLE IS THE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.
THE CHURCH HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OR OVERRULE THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE. THE CHURCH CANNOT ADD TO OR TAKE AWAY FROM SCRIPTURE!
YOU ARE INVITED TO FOLLOW MY BLOG. http://steve-finnell.blogspot.com
Post a Comment