Questions about church authority

[Highlyfavored]

I want to start this thread with part of a post from another thread.

Regarding 'habitual' sin, it is the duty of those responsible for the flock to discern this and protect the flock (which would/may include the offending party--if truly regenerate). The Holy Spirit would not be remiss in bringing to the minds of those tasked with this responsibility the reality in each particular case.

A question regarding discipline does come to mind: is the offending party always 'officially' notified of their judgement or is a judgment made and the offending party 'shunned' without being notified? Maybe this should be taken to another thread if anybody has any thoughts on it.

Here are my questions:

1. Does church authority or pastoral responsibility exist because of a clear line that reaches back to the apostles?
2. If so, what are the responsibilities of those over the flock?
3. If a line does not exist, does the idea of church or pastoral responsibility exist?
4. Also, if the line is broken, do we endow the church and the pastorate with authority and/or responsibility?
5. And if so, what responsibilities and/or authority do we grant to said persons and institutions?

[rlhuckle]

I want to start this thread with part of a post from another thread.Here are my questions:

1. Does church authority or pastoral responsibility exist because of a clear line that reaches back to the apostles?
2. If so, what are the responsibilities of those over the flock?
3. If a line does not exist, does the idea of church or pastoral responsibility exist?
4. Also, if the line is broken, do we endow the church and the pastorate with authority and/or responsibility?
5. And if so, what responsibilities and/or authority do we grant to said persons and institutions?

Good questions! As I have been taught, so I shall answer:

To number 1, there obviously is no clear 'line' that reaches back to the apostles, so the answer to number 2 is not premised by this non-existent line.

To number 2, there are qualifications, duties and responsibilities outlined in Scripture in regards to those who desire (desire which is God-given to those whom God would have to lead the flock--for good or bad) to have charge over the flock.

To number 3, the answer to number 2 applies.

To number 4; we do not endow authority to anybody, God does. The flock is commanded to be in obeisance to those in authority--for good or bad. It is the responsibility of the flock to hold those in authority to sound doctrine and behavior just as much as it is the responsibility of those in authority to hold individuals within the flock to sound doctrine and behavior.

To number 5, see the answer to number 4.

This is my current understanding of what Scripture teaches on the subject--note that my original question stands with no comments as of yet.

Of course I understand that Highly's (sorry, haven't looked at your profile yet) questions stand in premise to my question (thanks for asking them), so --would the lack of these premises (should my understanding of the above be in error) make my original question totally irrelevant?

[Highlyfavored]

Good questions! As I have been taught, so I shall answer:

To number 1, there obviously is no clear 'line' that reaches back to the apostles, so the answer to number 2 is not premised by this non-existent line.

To number 2, there are qualifications, duties and responsibilities outlined in Scripture in regards to those who desire (desire which is God-given to those whom God would have to lead the flock--for good or bad) to have charge over the flock.

I am of the persuasion that since there is not a clear line that most if not all of the organized church is apostate.

To number 3, the answer to number 2 applies.

These qualifications therefore would not make any sense in the case of a fellowship of apostate believers for lack of a better term.

To number 4; we do not endow authority to anybody, God does. The flock is commanded to be in obeisance to those in authority--for good or bad. It is the responsibility of the flock to hold those in authority to sound doctrine and behavior just as much as it is the responsibility of those in authority to hold individuals within the flock to sound doctrine and behavior.

If the line is broken then what exactly does this look like? Is there a lightning bolt or voice from above that endorses one possible candidate over another? This seems rather ambiguous.

To number 5, see the answer to number 4.

Here is where I am confused, if we don't have the proper acid test to see whose voice should lead the flock, how exactly do we know? I am not trying to be controversial or stir up a hornet's nest, but it seems to me that there are a lot of folks coming out of seminaries with no clue about high grace, four pointers and 5 point infralapsarians, federal visionists, new perspective on Paul-ers and this is just from the so called reformed crowd. It seems that there is a lot of garbage to sort through, so how to find the right guy? What does a church look like? Do we need a new model? What would it be? Is what we have come to know as the mainstream church and denominations not just in need of reformation, but in need of being flushed in order to leave the apostate model behind?

This is my current understanding of what Scripture teaches on the subject--note that my original question stands with no comments as of yet.

Of course I understand that Highly's (sorry, haven't looked at your profile yet) questions stand in premise to my question (thanks for asking them), so --would the lack of these premises (should my understanding of the above be in error) make my original question totally irrelevant?

No question is irrelevant, your question simply spurned me on to write this thread. Your question should be answered in the thread where it originated.

What should a fellowship of believers look like today?

[Saint Nicholas]

In response to Greg's (highlyfavored) question from the above post "What should a fellowship of believers look like today"?

Here is my answer Greg. First...the building must have stained glass windows and a steeple that reaches into the highest heavens. In this way, the Cross (metal or wooden ) that is mounted on the pinnacle of the steeple could act as an antenna to communicate with God. Secondly....The Minister must be installed after a thorough conditioning, and submission of his mind, to the divines that cloned him, in the seminary. After this procedure has been accomplished, he has now the official right of ordination, and can wear ecclesiastical robes, and officialy call himself a profeesional clergyman to show his superiority over the laity.
He also has the right to put an illuminious sticker on his vehicle that says CLERGY. He also receives special class status in that he will receive a salary, healthcare benefits, expenses, pension plan, etc; paid for by the donations of those whom he rules over. Of course the laity must support this, but also DONATE their time and energies to boot.

The pulpit must not exceed the heigth of Dr. D. James Kennedy's pulpit of 30Ft. from the floor up.

The pews must be comfortable, and the building must have air conditioning, so the doners get their monies worth.

Musical instuments must be forbidden in some circles, while other more liberal groups must have an organ. Raising of your hands unto the Lord in song worship is "verboten".

The minister must be called Reverend. NO EXCEPTIONS!

The Laity must never question the teachings of their confessions, or the clergymen. Why? Because they are unlearned and have not been properly conditioned and cloned in seminary.

A church should look appealing and inviting and belong to the World Council of churches, the National Council of churches, and all ecumenicl orginizations.

Church members and the clergy should never say that Roman Catholics need the Gospel, because they are already Christians and part of the body of Christ.

Well Greg I will stop here. I can write a book on this subject there is a lot more.

Oh, just one last thought...A church should always meet on the Sunday Sabbath.

In love,

Nicholas

[MCoving]

Sorry just a quick question what is apostate? Also on the idea of church authority I dont know what to think of it, as I haven't found a church in Oregon that is solid in the Gospel. Some will say God is sovereign over all things but when it comes down to it, He is only sovereign over the good. Many churches today are still wrapped up in traditions that are not biblical but just extra addons, and many pastors as we have said have seminary backgrounds and think that qualifies them as knowing much and the congregation as knowing little.

So to be honest in my experience I have lost respect for American churches these days. Not to say there isn't a fairly biblical and loving one out there its just I haven't seen it. I have seen so called Christians in church be some of the most unloving people ever. It really saddenned me in my old church when I had friends talking about a friend of mine behind his back. I hated gossip and I hated slandering and putting down of other people just to make themselves look good. Then not to mention pastors were in on it to, I had some horrible things said behind my back about me from people in "authority". haha lol. Not to mention a lot more is said these days about me, mostly 'cause I "dont go to church" anymore, they consider me a rebel and just tossed about by any kind of doctrine.

I like to talk.. have you noticed? Sometimes I jump the gun, and dont really know what Im saying. But thanks for listening anyways about my thoughts...

Mary

[Dorcas]

Here is where I am confused, if we don't have the proper acid test to see whose voice should lead the flock, how exactly do we know? I am not trying to be controversial or stir up a hornet's nest, but it seems to me that there are a lot of folks coming out of seminaries with no clue about high grace, four pointers and 5 point infralapsarians, federal visionists, new perspective on Paul-ers and this is just from the so called reformed crowd. It seems that there is a lot of garbage to sort through, so how to find the right guy?

I think that the reason for this is because the only difference between a "pastor" today and any of us is that they picked a different major in college. Teaching is a gift of the Holy Spirit, (Romans 12:6-8) not something that people ought to pick to pay the bills or bring the prestige they desire. I always get worried when I hear a preacher who isn't very good, and people say he will "work into it".

I believe that when the Holy Spirit gives someone the discernment and teaching gifts necessary to lead others, then it is evident. That is not to say that anyone will have everything 100% right (not this side of Heaven). However, all of the crooks and egomaniacs in the pulpits out there are soon exposed when they fall into heresy or public sin.

Just my 2 cents.

[MCoving]

I think that the reason for this is because the only difference between a "pastor" today and any of us is that they picked a different major in college. Teaching is a gift of the Holy Spirit, (Romans 12:6-8) not something that people ought to pick to pay the bills or bring the prestige they desire. I always get worried when I hear a preacher who isn't very good, and people say he will "work into it".

I believe that when the Holy Spirit gives someone the discernment and teaching gifts necessary to lead others, then it is evident. That is not to say that anyone will have everything 100% right (not this side of Heaven). However, all of the crooks and egomaniacs in the pulpits out there are soon exposed when they fall into heresy or public sin.

Just my 2 cents.

You make a good point it is pretty evident to who the teachers are, I mean even on this forum. And throughout the internet or when you hear broadcasts of preachers you can tell who the teachers are. And the greatest example of a teacher we have is Jesus Christ. Now was he getting paid? Was he anything like the pastors we have today in our mainstream churches? Just an interesting thought.. to really dive into how Jesus taught and maybe model ones teaching after that. If one is given the gift of teaching.. but even for us who are not, we should try and model our lives after Christ.

Mary

[unhingedsquare]

The best acid test of one who presents himself as a pastor/teacher is what Jesus said:

Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. ESV

You can tell a false teacher by what he says. He can be in a glass cathedral surrounded by fancy stuff and lots of people. Or he can also be sitting in someone's living room among a few acquaintances. The organ, stained glass, pews, organization etc. do not of themselves produce falsehood.

I know it is tempting to keep to oneself and not deal with it but the same Jesus who died for us wants us to gather with others to receive His gifts. At times this means tolerating a pastor with whom you have personal issues even though what he proclaims is truth. Nowhere in scripture is it presented we can live on our own little spiritual island. On the contrary we are instructed to obey those who have authority. This authority's source is God from Whom all authority springs.

Ephesians 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 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, 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. ESV

No I am not in the public ministry nor do I play the part of pastor in chat, forums or on TV. Nor do I even have the desire to deal with all those sheep constantly.

God's peace. †

[lionovjudah]

I am of the persuasion that since there is not a clear line that most if not all of the organized church is apostate.These qualifications therefore would not make any sense in the case of a fellowship of apostate believers for lack of a better term.If the line is broken then what exactly does this look like? Is there a lightning bolt or voice from above that endorses one possible candidate over another? This seems rather ambiguous. Here is where I am confused, if we don't have the proper acid test to see whose voice should lead the flock, how exactly do we know? I am not trying to be controversial or stir up a hornet's nest, but it seems to me that there are a lot of folks coming out of seminaries with no clue about high grace, four pointers and 5 point infralapsarians, federal visionists, new perspective on Paul-ers and this is just from the so called reformed crowd. It seems that there is a lot of garbage to sort through, so how to find the right guy? What does a church look like? Do we need a new model? What would it be? Is what we have come to know as the mainstream church and denominations not just in need of reformation, but in need of being flushed in order to leave the apostate model behind?

What should a fellowship of believers look like today?

Hello Gregg: It appears to me you are inadvertantly espousing roman catholic apostolic sucsession or some ladmarkism bloodline in order to determine the role of pastor/teacher or one group that is not 'apostate'. Scriptures are very clear that Christ promised NEVER to leave His children orphans. Even in Israel, there was always a remnant called according to grace. Echoing statements I posted in another thread, when we severe ties from history, we are left with complete chaos and recreating the wheel every single time. There is no hint in the writ the model would cease to exist. There are Godly ministers in the world today. Those who labor for the Lord day and night. Of course it is easier to to assume we have 20/20 vision and are able to remove every speck of sand from anothers eye, when the whole power of the sun could barely bring it to light.

And we do have an acid test. It is the internet. Ecclesiastical power of declaring one anathema is as easy as the click of me typing right now. The power of binding and loosing is not given to leaders, but now to each and every individual who calls themselves a keyboard theologian.

The scare tactic that is used by you and Nick is the fear of "Being back on the road to ROme" When in fact they are just returning to Geneva!!!!

The promises of God ALWAYS have a corporate aspect to them, with certain individuals in the community who have the divine gift of teaching/preaching. It has always been like this and always will be. There is command to submission to external authority. And when we deviate, it is us who becomes apostate.

Now please dont take my words to me that we are not called to challenge and confirm the words of a teacher; we are, but we are also not commanded to take out the perverbial flea comb and spend our time nit picking.

[rlhuckle]

I am of the persuasion that since there is not a clear line that most if not all of the organized church is apostate.

I pretty much agree with you (regarding the apostacy)!

These qualifications therefore would not make any sense in the case of a fellowship of apostate believers for lack of a better term.If the line is broken then what exactly does this look like? Is there a lightning bolt or voice from above that endorses one possible candidate over another?

Where in Scripture does God dictate that a clear line should/must exist and that we should have inerrant knowledge of it? Scripture clearly states that God gifts the church with men to enlighten and edify and mature. We accept them as they are revealed to us--or not--as the Spirit leads each of us. I did not always think that the organized church was apostate--it took a few years of listening to pastors and teachers, studying, attending fellowship (and even participating in ministry efforts) --true and reprobate-- before I arrived at that judgment. God used all those teachers.

It really doesn't matter if the particular fellowship happens to be apostate or not (from God's standpoint--He leads His own), Scripture is clear on authority--whether it be Ceasar or an Apostle. I truly believe if we had inerrant knowledge of some clear line of succession from the Apostles that most would end up worshipping those men and their teachings instead of relying on Christ and His finished work --it would be only natural,eh?

Here is where I am confused, if we don't have the proper acid test to see whose voice should lead the flock, how exactly do we know? I am not trying to be controversial or stir up a hornet's nest, but it seems to me that there are a lot of folks coming out of seminaries with no clue about high grace, four pointers and 5 point infralapsarians, federal visionists, new perspective on Paul-ers and this is just from the so called reformed crowd. It seems that there is a lot of garbage to sort through, so how to find the right guy?

There is only one test--the Gospel. I agree, the emergence of a 'professional' clerical 'order' within Christendom has done more harm than good (in a general sense). I am all for a return to fellowships being the vehicle for the training and equipping of future leaders. However, I have learned a lot from those 'professionals' --both right and wrong; so obviously God uses them as He sees fit in the maturing of His own.

What does a church look like? Do we need a new model? What would it be? Is what we have come to know as the mainstream church and denominations not just in need of reformation, but in need of being flushed in order to leave the apostate model behind?

I'm still looking although I may have found a fellowship locally. Obviously, the doctrine the fellowship proclaims is paramount and then whether or not the fellowship ACTUALLY lives what it believes (within reason--no fellowship is perfect) is very important. Each must trust the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth in regards to fellowship. I am very wary but I think I am learning maturer ways of grace each day, thanks be to God.

What should a fellowship of believers look like today?

I'm almost convinced that a house church might be the best bet--one that encourages the entire family to learn and worshipt together. Fathers need to be seen by the children as the pastor/teacher/ministers of their own families in the context of worship and fellowship. I think organized 'sunday schools' and 'children's church' or 'teen ministries' are a diservice--churches that use these methods have adopted the ways of the world and demonstrate their ignorance--they actually promote the disintegration of the family.

[Highlyfavored]

In response to Greg's (highlyfavored) question from the above post "What should a fellowship of believers look like today"?

Here is my answer Greg. First...the building must have stained glass windows and a steeple that reaches into the highest heavens. In this way, the Cross (metal or wooden ) that is mounted on the pinnacle of the steeple could act as an antenna to communicate with God. Secondly....The Minister must be installed after a thorough conditioning, and submission of his mind, to the divines that cloned him, in the seminary. After this procedure has been accomplished, he has now the official right of ordination, and can wear ecclesiastical robes, and officialy call himself a profeesional clergyman to show his superiority over the laity.
He also has the right to put an illuminious sticker on his vehicle that says CLERGY. He also receives special class status in that he will receive a salary, healthcare benefits, expenses, pension plan, etc; paid for by the donations of those whom he rules over. Of course the laity must support this, but also DONATE their time and energies to boot.

The pulpit must not exceed the heigth of Dr. D. James Kennedy's pulpit of 30Ft. from the floor up.

The pews must be comfortable, and the building must have air conditioning, so the doners get their monies worth.

Musical instuments must be forbidden in some circles, while other more liberal groups must have an organ. Raising of your hands unto the Lord in song worship is "verboten".

The minister must be called Reverend. NO EXCEPTIONS!

The Laity must never question the teachings of their confessions, or the clergymen. Why? Because they are unlearned and have not been properly conditioned and cloned in seminary.

A church should look appealing and inviting and belong to the World Council of churches, the National Council of churches, and all ecumenicl orginizations.

Church members and the clergy should never say that Roman Catholics need the Gospel, because they are already Christians and part of the body of Christ.

Well Greg I will stop here. I can write a book on this subject there is a lot more.

Oh, just one last thought...A church should always meet on the Sunday Sabbath.

In love,

Nicholas

Well yes, one could always look at it this way. Infact some do.