All Church Government is Unbiblical
Dear beloved BT readers, today while sitting at my desk I noticed an email from a group I’m in, and the subject of the latest discussion thread had to do with the argument that the office of elder or pastor, and all church government (of any kind) is unbiblical due to apostolic expiration. The person’s opening argument was:
The Bible’s authorized church government ceased with the death of the last Apostle, the chain of command having been irrevocably broken. Therefore, all church governments since then are man-made, unauthorized, and unbiblical.
I don’t know why, but I answered this fool by saying:
This is heresy. The Lord Jesus Christ sanctioned the New Covenant office of elder and made provision for the continuity of that office in His giving of the Pastoral Epistles to His church. Further biblical proof includes the many passages that speak of the conduct the Christian is to have toward those that have rule over them. Scripture also speaks of the elders and overseers as being appointed by the Holy Spirit.
The idea that the office of “pastor” and “church government” is unbiblical, is the doctrine of a false teacher and is therefore to be rejected!
To that, the joker replied:
First those passages applied to the NT church -Only- . Once the NT was complete and all the Apostles died off they no longer apply…your opinion of someone having “rule” over someone else is completely unbiblical within the context of trying to say that leaders “have the rule” over the poor soul in the pew.
So, busy at my desk with other things, I fired this off:
Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17, and 1 Pet. 5:5 sufficiently establish the biblical doctrine in explicit terms that Christians are to submit to elders, that elders have rule over “souls in the pew”, and that elders are accountable to God for the souls of them that the elder rules. Your assertion that this is not true is in open denial of clear biblical doctrine.
At this point I’m thinking that the case is pretty much closed. But wait until you see what comes next. I’m currently trying to obtain permission from him to use the subsequent email because it will certainly give his identity away - something he may not be comfortable with. If he denies my request, I’ll still use it (it’s riddled with fallacies of all types), I’ll just edit the personal information out for his anonymity.
But stay tuned, we’ll see! This should be highly educational…
How would you have handled this?
49 Comments, Comment or Ping
agogley
This is certainly a radical departure from traditional understanding of Biblical exegesis of the aforementioned passages. Even the Catholics, Orthodox, and cults understand these passages to mean that churches should have these positions. Furthermore, there is a wide gap between the meaning of no longer applies and “unbiblical.” A lot of Protestant churches do not have these positions per se and might argue that these positions aren’t binding, but unbiblical?
Is this person advocating then that there be no local body with no leadership? I couldn’t imagine a church run without some order. And it certainly can be inferred from the OT and NT, that God values order.
And why would Paul tell Timothy to establish church leadership in a certain fashion, only to have it be irrelevant and obsolete upon the death of the Apostles? And was Timothy considered an Apostle with regards to “apostolic expiration?”
Aug 12th, 2008
Sir Aaron
FYI to all…I’m changing my screenname to match my handle at other locations.
Aug 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
He actually goes on to state that because the word elder is not found in Hebrews 13 that it is an error to assume that verse 17 is regarding submission to elders. He says that “Elder Rule” advocates use this verse to give authority to elders to rule over a congregation. He doesn’t stop there, he goes on to argue that Christ said there shall be “NO” authority in the church, a serious collapse of context!
He just emailed me back with certain conditions. I’m posting it without his name.
Aug 12th, 2008
Sir Aaron
I don’t really understand how there can be no authority unless there is no formal body. I mean if there is no formal setting and people just meet in their homes on an informal basis, perhaps you could get by without anybody in charge. But practically speaking, it seems quite impossible. Such a position seems to me to ignore the historical context surrounding Paul’s letters. Just a superficial reading of Scripture indicates that there should be some structure.
Aug 12th, 2008
H8n S8n
Note to Stephen:
I have devloped a few tools for refuting the “Nim-News”
1. Copy what they posted to “Word”
2. Seperate each sentence by double-space line.
3. Now you take each thought/fact sentence, and dissect it “almost”
word for word. By doing this? You take their own words and “Flip It”
as they say. (ever hear of Flip-It? : ~ }
4. Easy one you already know “chapter & verse”
5. Not Applicable in this case - I always look for “I feel, I believe”
Unable to count how many times I have used that one !
5. The “Standard” is always Jesus !
“Once the NT was complete and all the Apostles died off”
H8n - Again Chapter & Verse + The Standard.
If Jesus died off? (thats a streach, however)
6. Logic does not generally work with Nim-News. Dissect eash sentence,
and “Flip It”. In my experience, has been much more evvective.
7. When I Really, Really, REALLY want to shoot ‘em down? I will give them
a “honey pot”. This is most effective in the heat of the battle and you are
shooting back n fourth. You give them a honey-pot. Before they know it?
They have stuck their hand in, AND CANNOT PULL IT OUT !
You may only get to use one. Save it for the big one !
So? What is a “Honey Pot” ? I will not share that in a public forum.
1. Locate someone with H8n S8n’s email address, and
2. How much you $$$ you got ?
Aug 12th, 2008
Glen
I’m not sure how I would have answered… It is difficult to know what to do. On one hand we need to stand for Biblical truth and contend for the faith (Jude 3), but we are also not to answer a fool according to his folly (Prov 26:4). I think the difference would be whether a person is willing to learn with an open mind to the Scripture and willing to accept what is clearly taught in them.
If you need to know what a honey pot is… I’ll charge less than H8n…
H8n, are you an IT person?
Aug 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
OK, in the OP I left off with my shot from the hip saying:
“Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17, and 1 Pet. 5:5 sufficiently establish the biblical doctrine in explicit terms that Christians are to submit to elders, that elders have rule over “souls in the pew”, and that elders are accountable to God for the souls of them that the elder rules. Your assertion that this is not true is in open denial of clear biblical doctrine.”
Mr. Exegetical responds by saying (embrace yourselves):
Not even close.
Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your
souls, as those who will give an account. (Heb. 13:17)
This is usually the first scripture cited to “prove” that elders have
authority. It says, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit
to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give
account….”
Now, go through the verse and **pick out the word “elder.”**! If you
cannot find it in the verse, look for it in the context. You are right!
It is nowhere to be found. Is it not strange that the main text to which
those who advocate “Elders Rule,” does not even mention “elders”? It is assumed beyond a shadow of a doubt that verse 17 is talking about
elders. Then, it is welded into a law of God that this verse gives
elders the authority to rule over the congregation.
Only elders who have been properly ordained could be expected to be held accountable for those in their charge. And again this only applied to the NT church. Church elders today are Unbiblical. This objection also contradicts the teaching of Messiah who said there shall be NO “authority” in the church.
Simply using */”e-sword”/* to see what is the mind of God is so
revealing. When we go to the Strong’s number for the word translated
*’obey’* here we find the word Greek word *’peitho’,* Strong’s number
3982. It appears 58 times. By far the most common translation for this
Greek word in the King James Version is ‘persuade,’ ‘persuaded,’
‘persuadeth,’ etc. Here is the first place this word appears in the New
Testament:
*Mat 27:20 * But the chief priests and elders_* persuaded*_ the
multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
“The chief priest’s and elders” had no authority to command the people
to ask for Barabbas or to destroy Jesus. But they we able to
_*persuade*_ the multitude to “_*ask*_” Pilate to do so. And so it is in
Hebrews 13:7 and 17.
There is a Greek word for ‘obey.’ It is _*’hupakouo*_.’ ‘_*Hupakouo*_’
appears 21 times in the New Testament and is properly translated either as ‘obey,’ ‘obedience,’ or ‘obeyed.’ Here is the first time this word
appears in the New Testament:
*Mat 8:27* But the men marvelled, saying, What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea _*obey*_ him!
Here it is again:
*Eph 6:1* Children, _*obey*_ your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
And again:
*1Pe 3:6* Even as Sara _*obeyed*_ Abraham, calling him lord: whose
daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any
amazement.
The winds and the sea obeyed Christ, children are admonished to obey their parents and Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him lord. _*But nowhere in scripture are we ever told that a minister has the right to rule over his flock as Christ rules the wind and sea, as parents rule their children or as wives ought to obey their husbands.*_ The Greek word ‘_*hupakouo*_’ is never used in that way. Rather the Greek word
‘_*peitho*_’ meaning ‘persuaded’ is used instead.
***This is his refutation of the claim that Scripture commands Christians to “obey” elders. He has taken the Greek word rendered “obey” and shown that in other passages it is translated “persuaded.” He has then taked the rendering “persuaded” and applied it to his interpretation of Heb. 13:17. So instead of “Obey your leaders and submit to them…” he would have us say that the text should read “Persuaded your leaders and submit to them…” (a funny side note that he’s unaware of is that a form of the word he argues should be rendered “obey” is found in the verse - rendered “submit to them” iow, obey them - hehehe!).
We can use this example as an ongoing training to sharpen our exegetical skills. So when we come to this thread, we can all participate in unravelling some of his tangles.
Dust of those lexicons and crank up that Bible software! And remember, if you’re new to this but want to give it a try, go for it. It’s better to make mistakes here where we correct gently than to dodge darts from the enemy outside the walls!
Aug 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Glen,
I’m feelin’ you. That’s why I included “I don’t know why, but I answered this fool…” I usually ignore his irrational rants (he also fights to the death to say Rom. 7 is about Paul as an unbeliever). Looking back I think it was stupid of me to even answer. But by God’s grace my mistake can still be of value here if we use it as a training excercise to his glory.
Aug 12th, 2008
H8n S8n
Note to Glen:
No, I am not an IT. This does not relate to “script kitties” or stuff
like that. Its not that kinda “Honey-Pot” However? It is where I got the
phrase.
My 1st PC in 1991 was a Leading Edge 8088 !
Aug 12th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
In his section on Word-Study Fallacies, D.A. Carson says “[t]here are many different ways of misunderstanding the meaning of a word in a particular context by illegitimately restricting the word’s semantic range.” He goes on to say,
“We sometimes fail to appreciate how wide the total semantic field of a word is; therefore when we come to perform the exegesis of a particular passage, we do not adequately consider the potential options and unwittingly exclude possibilities that might include the correct one. A frequently cited example of semantic breadth is bound up with our word board. A board is a piece of dressed lumber, a plank. Many people pay room and board, an expression possibly derived from the fact that in older English the table from which one ate on special occasions was called a festive board. A group of people gathered together for a business might be called a board of trustees; and if they get on a ship or a train, they will step on board and hope they do not fall overboard. The same word can function as a verb: workmen may board up a broken window, and passengers board a jetliner” (D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, Second Edition, Unwarranted restriction of the semantic field, Baker Academic, pg. 57).
This sounds like the case with Mr. Exegetical.
Aug 12th, 2008
Glen
Stephen, We could also be “board” with rants like these… There are also cases when you translate a word from one language to another.
There might be one word in a language that has multiple meanings and uses in that language. You can then translate that word multiple ways into another. Example… Cuarto (Spanish) could mean “room,” “forth (as in 4th in line),” and “forth (as in 1/4).”
H8n, I thought that might be where you got the phrase.
Aug 13th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Glen~
Sorry…I’m known for butting in…I think the word your looking for is “bored” not “board” and “forth” should be “fourth”…
=)
Aug 13th, 2008
Glen
Mama,
OK, so I’ve shown that without MS Word I can’t spell.
Aug 13th, 2008
mschellman
Steven et al,
While I do not agree with the subject in questions line of reasoning, I think we must be careful not to import our own ideas of “rule” into those passages which clearly state elder authority. What does it mean to “rule over the souls in the pews?” What does the anonymous poster think it means. His understanding of “rule” IS important. If he were to explain what he means by “rule” you may find you would object to it as well. Then you could correct him by presenting leadership from a more Biblical perspective.
What do we mean by “rule”? Passages like Heb. 13:17, 1 Tim. 5:17, and 1 Pet. 5:5, should be understood in light of other passages like Matt 20-25-27 and 23:1-12; as well as 2 Corinthians 1:24 and 1 Timothy 5:1.
Are the NT authors arguing for a hierarchical structure of authority with congregants submitting to elders who in turn submit to Apostles. Or is it a more organic familial kind of eldership based on submission to those who have a greater maturity in the faith (as a child submits to a parent or elder sibling)? The character and expression of Biblical leadership stands in stark contrast to that of earthly rulers.
Also consider the ideal King presented in Deuteronomy 17:15-20. Who is not to lead with power but by example. And Paul himself primarily lead by example 1 Cor 4:16.
All these considerations make up a Biblical view of what leadership and what it means to “rule (if that is even the best word for what we are trying to say).”
You may certainly say to me that you know all of this, but what does the anonymous poster know? And however justified you may feel in calling him(?) a fool, remember Matt 5:22b.
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
This person is arguing for “no authority” at all (humanly speaking - I don’t think he rejects divine authority outright) in the New Covenant church. He also rejects the “ideal king” example.
Aug 13th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Glen…=)
Aug 13th, 2008
Johnny B
mschellman, amen, we some times need to establish a common meaning of the words used, before we can, argue either way. This guy could be an of the gifts of the Spirit, past with the apostles, on the ultra end of that. Can’t remember the term of it.
The context of Hebrews 13:17 is the sacrifices or obedience of Christ. I see the key, being, verse 1 “Let brotherly love continue.” and 1 Peter 5:5 “Yes, all of you be submissive to one another, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble” We submit to each other, in that sense there is no authority, as in lording over another.
If it is being done in Brotherly love and submission to one another, the word, authority, wouldn’t be a problem. There’s more to what the guy is saying, that meets the eye. I’d like to know his history, with elders or leaders, in his past. He could just need some guidance or healing from spiritual abuse of the past.
Aug 13th, 2008
Sir Aaron
Let’s put up the verse for a close look, shall we?
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you.”
(Heb 13:17)
First of all, one of the definitions for the greek word “peitho” is obey. The fact that this is not the most common translation for this particular greek word doesn’t prove that this isn’t the proper translation here. I checked 26 different versions of the Bible and all but 4 used some form of “obey” as the translation of this word. The other four used “give ear”, “Yield to those”, “Yield to Those”, and “Have confidence in”. (BBE, ITV,MKJV, TNIV). So…prove to me that your translation is correct while all other 26 translations are incorrect.
Secondly, even if you change “obey” to “persuade” you still are commanded to submit to your leaders. Given the verse itself and the surrounding context in the same chapter, one is hard pressed to argue that the leaders mentioned here are anybody but church leadership.
Thirdly, the verses: Matt 20-25-27 and 23:1-12; as well as 2 Corinthians 1:24 and 1 Timothy 5:1 don’t seem to apply at all. “Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm.”(2Co 1:24) Obviously, this guy (who by the way sounds extremely familiar to me…he must have posted here) is trying to say that we are to humble ourselves and should not lord our faith over others. I don’t think I want to know how the heck we are to discern false teachers much less confront them under such a position.
And indeed, Stephen is correct. The Greek word hupeiko? was translated “submit” in the same verse.
Aug 13th, 2008
Sir Aaron
I need some help with Joel Osteen lovers. Anybody have any resources that deal with his doctrinal fallacies?
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
JohnnyB,
His history is one of rebellion to the local church. He is, and has been, an “unchurched” soul without koinonia for probably 20 years or so. I guess you can say he’s a maverick. He’s the only hyper-Calvinist I know (I’ve only known two in my lifetime), and he condemns any non-TULIP soteriology as a false gospel, and in turn says Arminian-istic Christians aren’t saved (John Wesley et al). Calvinists that don’t do the same, to him aren’t saved either because they affirm a false gospel.
On another note, I want to push back a little on something you said.
If we view the chapter (which I consider an accurate chapter division) as “applicational” in respect to the first eleven chapters (12 & 13 both being “applicational”), then “brotherly love,” do not neglect hospitality,” ‘remember those,” “keep free from love of money,” “hold marriage in honor,” “remember your leaders,” “don’t be led away by diverse teachings,” “let us continually offer up sacrifices of praise to God,” “don’t neglect to do good,” “obey your leaders,” “submit to your leaders,” “let them rule joyfully,” “pray for us,” “do it earnestly,” and “the benediction,” can be understood in terms of the author’s “word of exhortation” that he appeals to them to bear with since he has written to them “briefly.”
I don’t really see the sacrifices or obedience of Christ as the context, nor do I see verse 1 to be the key. It is all applicational, meaning, he has given logical argument after logical argument and has given an uplifting “sermonette” (ch. 11) on the heroes of the faith. Then he (in ch.12) begins with “therefore,” and begins to apply those things written about to the way they should continue on living out their faith.
I know I’m rambling, but does this make sense?
There’s surely a tighter systematic view of the book than what I’ve briefly outlined. I’ll check it out later tonight and see what Baxter, Owen, Pink, et al, have to say. My off the cuff personal outlines are generally shattered after reading those guys!
P.S. Perhaps the term you were looking for is cessational?
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Sir Aaron! Bingo. You’ve noticed the “dative” peitho.
Now them wheels are turning.
Keep going brother. I knew someone would get it sooner or later!
Praise God.
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“Secondly, even if you change “obey” to “persuade” you still are commanded to submit to your leaders.”
This is not grammatically possible. I am away from my original language and lexicons right now, but someone needs to check and confirm that there is a major difference that prohinits the ’swap.”
I believe it is that one is passive and the other active, and that the passive is an imperative while the active is indicative. When I get access I’l repost, but can someone look these up in BibleWorks7 or something and post it? But I am sure they can’t be swapped, even though submissive obedience is commanded!
Good dig, Aaron.
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
“I need some help with Joel Osteen lovers. Anybody have any resources that deal with his doctrinal fallacies?”
I know of 66 resources…
If it doesn’t relate to the OP, then jump to this thread here: http://biblicalthought.com/blog/may-god-awaken-the-people/
There’s already a discussion in progress…
Aug 13th, 2008
Joey Frascella
LOL@ Reformed Mamma. You go grl. BTW You cannot resususate a dead corpse. Perhaps glenns’ original term be best. Answering a fool according to his folly. Hey!!! shout at glenn. Where you been brother?? Bobs speaking on Philemon better be there. Dim sum afterwards. That goes for you too mr Macasil!!!
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Joey!
We’ll see about Chinese food afterwards. I’m battling depression right now because of the marriage last Sunday. It’s hard to give someone up like that to another person. But, she was worth it, so I had to give Darrin away to my sister…
And I think you got the wrong Glen. This Glen is from out-of-state.
Aug 13th, 2008
Glen
Joey,
Would love to come, but I’m a little far north in CA to attend. Thanks for the invite…
I agree with Stephen about the 66 reasons…
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Here’s some more helpful material:
Baxter (JSB) marks the break at 10:19 saying that up until that break the treatise is almost wholly “doctrinal,” whereas from there onwards it is almost wholly “hortatory” (exhortative, giving strong encouragement). This provides good complimentary framework for my “applicational” thesis to subhead under (from 12:1 and on).
Calvin says, “Obey them, etc. I doubt not but that he speaks of pastors and other rulers of the Church, for there were then no Christian magistrates; and what follows, for they watch for your souls, properly belongs to spiritual government. He commands first obedience and then honor to be rendered to them.” Then in a footnote by the editor: Grotius renders the second verb, ????????, “concede” to them, that is, the honor due to their office; Beza, “be compliant,” (obsecundate;) and the directions of your guides and submit to their admonitions.” Doddridge gives the sentiment of Calvin, “Submit yourselves to them with becoming respect.”
The words may be rendered, “Obey your rulers and be submissive;” that is cultivate an obedient, compliant and submissive spirit. He speaks first of what they were to do — to render obedience and then of the spirit with which that obedience was to be rendered; it was not merely to be an outward act, but proceeding from a submissive mind. Schleusner’s explanation is similar, “Obey your rulers and promptly (or willingly) obey them.” (from ccel.org)
Hess: PEITHESTHE TOIS HEEGOUMENOIS HUMOON, Obey ye the [ones] leading of you (Marshall 893); PEITHESTHE is second person plural, present middle imperative of PEITHOO; HEEGOUMENOIS is the present middle participle, dative plural masculine of HEEGEOMAI (Han 409); in the middle voice, be persuaded, listen to, obey [those who are] your guides (Vine 796, 979); be obedient to your leading ones (Lenski 489); continue to obey your leaders (Williams).
KAI HUPEIKETE, and submit to [them] (Marshall 893); HUPEIKETE is second person plural, present active imperative of HUPEIKOO (Han 409); [HUPO under, EIKOO to yield], hence, yield, submit, used metaphorically of submitting to spiritual guides in the churches (Vine 1100); and submit (Lenski 489); and to be submissive (Williams).
Aug 13th, 2008
Denise
Ah, the rebellious churchless people are easy to spot a mile away. That’s all this guy is. He doesn’t want to submit to any authority above him, especially in a local church. That is to say, he will not submit to the Master and HIS commands.
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
2Co 4:5 For what WE PROCLAIM is not ourselves, but JESUS CHRIST AS LORD, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.
1Jo 2:4 Whoever says “I know Him” but does not keep His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him
Jesus Christ is called Lord no less than 747 times in the New Testament. In the LITV its 670; 100 in Acts with twice “Savior”.
In the book of Acts you have the preaching pattern for the rest of the centuries of the church’s life, 92 times in the book of Acts Jesus is called Lord, two times called Savior.
Luk 6:46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?
Aug 13th, 2008
Glen
Just curious, is he a member of a “home church?”
Aug 13th, 2008
Reformed Mama
Hi Joey! See you Sunday…God willing!
Aug 13th, 2008
Sir Aaron
I don’t have BibleWorks7 so you’re on your own there. I also don’t have baxter, owen, etc. I guess that’s two strikes.
As to Calvin’s commentary, that was exactly the point I was getting at. How can you read that chapter in Hebrews, much less the verse itself without seeing that the leaders are local church leaders?
I can understand some of the sentiments about the hime church movement. But this elder thing isn’t usually one of them.
Also, a la Joel Osteen. I need something more specific, outlining his doctrinal problems. Also, which of Dr. morey’s books best outlines the doctrines of Grace? I have a new friend who has been discussing free will with me and seems open to the doctrines of Grace. I just have to get past the pentacostal tendencies that were ingrained in him as a child.
Aug 13th, 2008
Brad B
Fundamentally this is a denial of the doctrine of depravity also since it implies that without God having given teachers, pastors, evangelists etc. that the saints would do ok as their own judge to see what is right in their own eyes. Here’s Eph 4. speaking about how without God’s specific gifting, none of the benefits spoken below are possible.
Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers,
Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
If we aren’t going to hear gifted men to correct us, we’re sure to be like the man who chooses to be his own lawyer, being that his client is a fool, or in biblical language, the blind leading the blind.
Brad B
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Sir Aaron,
I posted a teaser on the Osteen thread. It’s a clip from a Paul Washer sermon:
http://biblicalthought.com/blog/may-god-awaken-the-people/
You might also try the sites of some of our friends.
Try Ingrid’s site: http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/
Pastor Ken’s site: http://apprising.org/2008/02/joel-osteen-on-60-minutes/
Chris’s site: http://www.extremetheology.com/joel_osteen_critique/index.html
Rand Winburn: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/heretics/Joel%20Osteen%20Open%20Letter.pdf
I’ll be on the lookout for some more.
Aug 13th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Denise, good eye. “easy to spot…”
Brad B, interesting angle.
Sir Aaron, I’ll exegete these texts this weekend sometime and post more grammatical details.
Aug 13th, 2008
Denise
While Scripture indeed teaches us that we need to be in a local church that has teachers and pastors /elders, etc., it does not say that without them we cannot know the Truth. Not that anyone has said that, but there is that danger. I’ve seen many Christians fall into the Magisterium Mentality. Teachers are to present the Truths of Scripture, but it is the Holy Spirit that teaches us and WE are to be the judges of what is being taught:
Act 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
It is the living Word, the God-breathed Scripture, that the Spirit uses to teach and correct us.
Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Joh 14:26 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 that I have said to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that He [Holy Spirit] will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Luk 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Psa 119:99 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation.
Gal 1:16 [God] …was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;
2Ti 2:7 Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.
The Magisterium Mentality is the idea that only a select few can “really know” the Scripture and therefore we are beholden to them to get the meat of the Word. This is extremely dangerous. It’s even Gnostic in its thinking. God Himself opens up our eyes to the truths in His Word, man cannot do this. No seminary is required by Him. =)
The local church is to help keep each member accountable, to be sure. However, that said, it is the Holy Spirit that reveals what is of Him or not. Teachers/pastors themselves can be deceived and unteachable to the Word and Spirit. Certainly they aren’t keepers of the Truth. That is why they need us to hold them accountable too.
Deception in leadership can be extraordinarily subtle (see Jude and 2Peter 2), and without the other gifts of the Spirit being exercised and welcomed, those that teach could lead many into error. In fact, the gift of discernment is one gift that does keep error at bay, if the leadership and people listen, but it’s not the “person” who has the gift, but rather the Holy Spirit and the Scripture that is warning His local body.
Aug 14th, 2008
Daniel Chew
Stephen:
is that the same guy that attack John Calvin, John Robbins and Gordon Clark for being not “Calvinistic” enough? Oh well….
Aug 14th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Daniel!
Good to hear from you again. I’ve decided to not affirm or deny his identity since he has been informed of the discussion and has set forth certain terms that if not met, has requested to have his name left out of it. I’ll respect that. I did the same thing for a “popular pastor” that completely hammered me in a very un-Christian way via several lengthy email exchanges over my first Tim Keller post (he asked to not be named publicly). I do it for the poster here that goes by the handle “Jean Cauvin” and “Jean Chauvin.” Although “Jean Cauvin” never said “please don’t release my identity for the sake of my credibility,” he asked for anonymity in a respectful way, and although he has justified an “outing” by his behavior here, I just refute his ideas where they need refuting as well as promote and encourage him where he “lines up!”
BTW, do you have any Joel Osteen posts on your EXCELLENT blog?
Sir Aaron was asking for some and I should have mentioned your site along with the others.
People: Daniel’s Place should be read daily (although I do not take my own advice, I should). We don’t have a “links” page (yet), but if we did (and when we do) it’s going up along with other BT/FD crawls…
Aug 14th, 2008
Brad B
Hi Denise, I appreciate your post and wanted to say that my earlier post was not intended to suggest in any way that people dont use personal due diligence as the scriptures are their spiritual food. By the way, I’d urge anyone that might think that it’s mysterious and without *means* to consider that faith is lived out in the real world. It is a haughty spirited person who thinks that the gifted men and women [tested to be so, by the way] aren’t called to be in authority by special calling [again tested and proved to be so] as God’s ministers to His bride.
Personally I’ve known this haughtyness a little too intimately and for many years thought I never needed to have any teacher but God. This thinking is an offense to Him though because it denies His particular gifting meant for my good. This is what I really was getting at when I posted above, because even though our called and gifted teachers are also fallen, they are God’s appointed Until I got a taste of the Reformed traditions and was actually under a head that knew more than I did [he was tested and proved, by the way] that I realized what a truely gifted man of God was. To act as though God’s particular calling as teacher, pastor is unnessary and optional in my life is to misjudge pridefully–the same attitude as the person who thinks that God hasn’t used leadership as means toward caring for and loving His bride.
Brad B
Aug 14th, 2008
Daniel Chew
Stephen:
no problem, and thanks for your kind remarks. I was just curious since the one I have in mind was the most vitriolic hyper-Calvinist I have ever seen so far, and he does fit your short description to a T.
With regards to Joel Osteen, I’m sorry to say that I have nothing on him specifically. There are lots of books to read, a plethora of topics to address, and so little time, plus I have a full-time job. So I’ll normally address the issues that either I am reading up on, or that have a potentially large impact on Christians particularly with regards to the Christian circles I have contact with. Joel Osteen at least in Singapore is limited to the more business-minded prosperity adherents, which isn’t that large a group in Singapore as of now (The John Avanzini “pop-prosperity” type is more prevalant here).
And actually I do not update my blog daily, due to my time commitments. And researching and writing takes some time. But I’ll try to post something whenever I can.
I am now trying to do a write-up on Korean WoF ‘pastor’ David Yonggi CHO, as based upon his two infamous books. I do not know whether that would be of any help though.
Aug 15th, 2008
Johnny B
Daniel, those are some names, I haven’t heard in a long time. Wasn’t CHO’s name Paul before?
Aug 15th, 2008
Johnny B
Stephen, that was the word I was looking for. I think I didn’t make myself clear as to what I meant.
I believe we should submit to our elders and at the same time they can submit to us, I’ll explain that in a little bit. Even if we gave the word persuade or persuading, it would just mean that they are persuaded by the Lord obedience, and our submitting should be as well. It’s not the proper interpretation. It gives him his translation, but he still as to deal with the submitting.
The whole idea of a senior pastor, as the CEO servant, is what, is not biblical. If I can’t talk to the pastor, as a brother and bring correction through the word of God, then something is wrong. Peter said we need to submit one to another. Matthew 20 has already been mentioned, the pastor is not the final word on Church issues. Even Paul, in the so called pastoral epistles, never says appoint pastors, but elders. With-in the eldership there are pastor-teachers, but it never says that they are the ruling authority over the Church.
1 Peter 5:1-4 “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd ”
Peter exhorts, the elders, plural, not elder, to shepherd the flock of God, Peter being an elder as well, not a pastor or senior pastor. In their shepherding the flock, they are to be examples. They should receive correction as well as we should, submitting ourselves to another, in Brotherly love.
1 Peter 5:5-7 “Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, ALL OF YOU SUBMISSIVE TO ONE ANOTHER, and be clothed with humility, for “God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.” Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.”
We are called to submit to one another, all of us, flock to elders, elders to flock. Yes the elders, pastor the flock, it is done in plurality, not as a singular pastor. Is there a Scripture that says to appoint a pastor over the flock or Church?
Here are some that say to appoint elders.
Acts 14:21-23 “And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.” So when they had APPOINTED ELDERS in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.”
Titus 1:5 ” For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you”
There is always a plurality in the shepherding of the flock or church.
Acts 20:17, 28 “From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the ELDERS of the church……..Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you OVERSEERS, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
Paul, says they are to be honored, not him. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 ” Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”
Then James 5:14, uses a plurality as well “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the ELDERS of the church, and let THEM pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.”
I don’t see one man leading the flock of God in the Scripture. This means the eldership is not under a pastor, but that within the eldership, there are pastor-teachers, but they are not the final authority, the elders are not under their rule. Jesus instructed us about this, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave– just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
The senior pastor, should be under the eldership and under the flock, if he wants to be the first or greatest among us. The idea of senior pastor has pride behind it, it’d self centered, we all want to be chief over people, it our fallen nature.
I do agree we need to submit to the eldership of the flock, as they watch over us, they should be open to us as the flock as well. Elders are the leaders among equals. That has been lost in many parts of the body of Christ, it’s left over from the Roman church, the hierarchy rules the common people.
The idea of, a secular job, verses sanctified job (working for the church) is Roman church ideas, as well. The baker, welder and others, their job is sanctified, because they are sanctified. In other words, the whole life for Christ is sanctified, there is no separation. Between working for the church or for an unbeliever, we do it all unto Christ and our standing before Him is the same, no matter what job we do or don’t do.
I went to a conference this week, which was very interesting. It was about the church living as a community, being equal, amongest each other. No separation between, Sunday and the rest of the week. It’s about the whole life unto Christ, not just Sunday, or a separation between the leadership of the church and the flock. But living as a whole for Christ. They talked about the dangers of shepherding as well. We are to be equals among each other. There were some guy asking, about professional pastoring, because it was brought up, how we don’t need professional pastors. Some were like, I’d like to make a living as I shepherd the flock. They didn’t get, that it means, the professional attitude, not that men shouldn’t be compensated for the work. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 talk about that. It’s the whole idea that a pastor is the one with the one working for God, so he is different from those sitting listening to him teach. That’s the professionalism that they were talking about.
I do believe we need to submit to the elders, that watch over us. I just see the whole senior pastor structure as leaning toward, gentile rule. How many times have I heard that someone was a rebel, then come to find out the person was trying to exhort the pastor, by the word of God. But the pastor would not receive it because he was the senior pastor. Lead by example, if you give exhortations, receive exhortations, we are all subject one to another, there is no top dog, in the body of Christ.
Aug 15th, 2008
Stephen Macasil
Hi Johnny B,
I’d like to know more about the conference you attended. That is important because there are several “movements” out there that are pushing egalitarianism in the home as well as the church (ultimately, the world). The “flatline” position that you are implying sounds like supportive arguments that they have used to get where they are. Now, they are beyond arguing for a universal equality in submission and have moved way past that to what is sometimes called “decentralization.”
Decentralization is an ecclesiastical theory that basically wipes out “all” forms of hierarchical “government” and posits full “egalitarian-isticism” among the body of Christ. Several major problems exist with this scheme.
It assumes “spiritual equality” as it pertains to maturity, knowledge, piety, experience, wisdom, etc. Each member of this “swarm” (they call it a swarm - like a swarm of insects) operates with full “flatlined” equality, and only in the realm of good deeds (i.e. help, charity) and sentimental love can one be distinguished among the others. There are no leaders per se, rather, like a swarm of bees, the body of Christ morphs and adapts to whatever need is around them. No doctrine, no teachers (Jesus is the Teacher), no propositions, no leaders. Now it has hit the pneumatologists (those that study the Holy Spirit), and the emerging (liberal) pneumatologists have joined them in giving their support because they see this as an environment that “allows” the Holy Spirit to guide and operate… In a nutshell, this theory is an unseen backbone to the emerging church movement created and maintaind by the neo-liberals. Ultimately, it is unbiblical - but they don’t care, the Bible is a culturally condition body of literature that is insufficient for all of life, oh, and God can’t be put into a box (or a book for that matter!).
I’m not saying that the conference you attended was put on by these guys, but it would be helpful to know which organization and which names were “leading” this conference.
Aug 15th, 2008
Daniel Chew
Johnny B:
yes, Cho’s name was Paul once, before he decided to change it to David.
Aug 16th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
It’s interesting to note John Owen. Towards the end of his life he became congregational. It would be interesting to study his arguments before making an assertion so contrary to Church History.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 16th, 2008
Denise
Brad B,
I think we’re agreeing here. Being in a biblical, local church (which would obviously consister of pasters/elders and teachers) isn’t optional, as so many think it is.
I think too, you understood my concern that so many fall into that Magisterium Mentality syndrome and end up rubber-stamping men in the pulpit without checking him out thoroughly (we’re each called to test all teachers by Scripture, but every church should be doing that if they bring in a “guest speaker”).
I’ve personally sat under men who were given that rubber stamp of approval, only to found out they were very much without qualifications to stand behind the pulpit. Sadly, men either change over time, or their true colors come to light over time, and those we thought were pretty solid, turn out to be just the opposite. Its so rare to find sound, stong, biblical preachers today and by those of us who starve for the Meat, are becoming so disheartened at the watered-down-powdered-milk offered at so many “churches” today. =(
I’ve also found, as I alluded to in my earlier post, that without the other gifts being welcomed and used in the local church, it can still end up in error. One of the first and major ways error comes into a church is through its leaders (Jude and 2Peter 2). While most may not detect the error, those with the gift of discernment can & do, but unless that gift is appreciated and used and heeded, all the teaching won’t matter because the error is present. The gifts are meant to work in harmony with each other and I think that brins in accountability, too.
Anyway, things I’ve been thinking about lately due to our recent departure from our last church for some of these very same things. Its truly grievous. =(
Aug 16th, 2008
Jean Cauvin
Hello,
If asked by the moderator to remove myself from this blog I will respect that and forever remove myself.
Jean Cauvin
Aug 16th, 2008
Sir Aaron
Jean:
Why did this question suddenly come up? If a moderator wanted to remove you, I’m guessing it would be done already.
Aaron
Aug 17th, 2008
Johnny B
Stephen, the conference was called “The Total Church”. There is a book that was written by two of the speakers. But I’m mixing in the structure of the Church, with this conference, when that wasn’t the point of the conference. What I was seeing, seem to me to have some thing to do with Church structure in leadership. Other wise this type of community and interaction, couldn’t exist from my experiences.
Church hierarchy structures, beings up old wounds for me. Which lead me to search the Scripture, to see what they say about, hierarchy in the Church. Jesus said, that it wouldn’t be that way. Whenever you have one man in charge, it gets weird. I don’t care how good it seems. It’s not how Jesus said it should be, which makes it wrong. We all need to be accountable to each other, in Brotherly love. And if there is one man in charge, the overseer of the eldership, he should be their slave, submitting to their every need, Matthew 20:27 “And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave” I have seen that, they, usually want the elders to be their slaves, under them.
The word authority, itself brings up so many different reactions, these days. I believe in Church authority and a structure, that brings discipline to unruly people (false teachers, prophets, and converts) in the Church and/or to the body as well.
I see the Church needing to return to what it was, the reformation was a part of it, how much more can we recover, I have no idea. But we need to do as much as possible. There are more so-called Christians today, but we have less influence today then any other time in history. We’ve made the Church separate from the world, when the Church should be an active part of the world. Forming culture, not conforming to culture.
Aug 18th, 2008
Johnny B
Here’s one phrase that is a sign of things to come, or that are already. If you hear a pastor, say “my people” he is way of trace, and doesn’t know his biblical position, which isn’t pastor to began with, but, I already said what I believe about that. They are the Lord’s people, but that reveals the mind set of the, pastor, idea. They believe they are the shepherd of the flock, Jesus is the senior pastor or the chief shepherd (pastor), listen to what Peter has to say.
1 Peter 5:1-4 “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd THE FLOCK OF GOD that is among you, exercising oversight,not under compulsion, BUT WILLINGLY, as God would have you;not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”
The flock, is God’s, not man’s or pastor’s, our fallen nature, get stirred up when we are the top dog. The reason I added emphasis on, but willingly, is to refer back to Hebrews 13:17 and the obey or persuade. The writer could have this same idea in mind, with Christ suffering and obedience behind it. making them, willing or persuading them to be overseers of the flock of God. Likewise, causing us to submit to those overseers. Not saying this is the right translation, but with 1 Peter in mind, it’s not totally impossible, either.
Aug 23rd, 2008
Reply to “All Church Government is Unbiblical”