Christ's Bodily Resurrection: Prescriptive or Descriptive reason for Christian Worship? (Part Five)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three       Series Part Four

Three primary issues are yet to be addressed in this series concerning the Sabbath/Lord's Day issue (well at least till I'm done writing about it).  Each of these following issues has a direct correlation to the prescriptive/descriptive discussion.

First, I will address the five main texts related to the Lord's day (the resurrection texts in the gospels, Acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:1, Rev 1:10, Heb 4).  I will try to add in the associated issues with each of these

Second, I will address the passages related to Christian liberty and the law (Rom 14, 1 Cor 8-10, and several other epistle references to the sabbath).

Lastly, I will make some concluding comments on morning and evening worship.  This issue in particular weighs in heavy on the descriptive nature of OT observance.  This is a sad trend in the almost pandemic disappearance of evening worship services within evangelical churches.

Let's be honest here if one has to have a prescriptive command for Sunday morning and evening then at least be consistent: throw out Wednesday night prayer meetings, Sunday evening, and even Sunday School (sorry no direct commands for any of these).  Then again if descriptive patterns, practices, and principles do matter, then the discussion is more complex than simply quoting a verse.

I would love to spend time commenting on the beliefs and practices throughout church history.  However, each period in church history had their own issues and confrontations.  Let's be honest for every possible protestant position you can extract someone in church history who agrees with you.  This is all too common today to take the words of a person, creed, confession, and/or denomination and try to make there position on the issue what is correct for today.  On the other hand, exegesis and theology are not practiced in a vacuum.  We are not left today to reinvent every doctrine under the sun as if church history never addressed these issues.  Unfortunately, this idea of questioning and making changes is a current trend in evangelical circles.

We will address these issues in a later thread.

Till then keeping worshiping the Lord corporately and individually on the Lord's day.

Hope this helps some.
Comments encouraged.

Jesus and the Sabbath/Lord's Day issue (Part Four)

Jesus and the Sabbath/Lord's Day Issue (Part Four)

Series Part One     Series Part Two       Series Part Three   

We will take for granted that it is on the Lord's day Christians set aside a day for worship out of remembrance for the Lord's bodily resurrection from the dead, therefore we will focus on how Jesus himself observed the sabbath (technically at this point in history his bodily resurrection will not have happened yet).  This being said, what Jesus did is important for at least some of the following reasons (descriptive/or prescriptively is another matter):

1)  Many within evangelicalism function as though the "red letters" by the publisher are actually more authoritative than the surrounding "black letters."
2)  Many withing evangelicalism extract a great deal of their proof-texting for mercy and healing ministries, kingdom-now views from the gospels (well at least not the raising the dead part).
3)  Related to (number one), what Jesus actually did and said is exactly how God (in-flesh) would respond to these issues (we must remember Jesus is the second-person of the Godhead, John 1:1, 14).
Whether these views are right/wrong is not the point. The fact that people (in the church age) draw commands and/or principles from the four gospels does at least demand some attention be given to how Jesus handled the sabbath observance.

Are there principles and/or practices that are applicable for how we govern our activities on the Lord's Day?  We will consider one text in the gospels: Matthew 12.  Matthew 12 focuses on an issue of hunger and healing on the sabbath.  In a similar fashion, John 5 relates to Christ healing a man on the sabbath.  We will focus on the context of Mt 12 and hopefully extrapolate principles from this text (none of which are unique to me or to our current church situation in 2016).  No matter which text is the focus, the point is the same, Jesus actually did something on the sabbath and the Jewish leadership did not like it at all.

First, from a broader context, the gospel of Matthew neatly breaks down into five distinct discourse sections.  The most famous of these discourses being the sermon on the mount (ch. 5-7) and the olivet discourse (ch. 24-25).  Our text under consideration is found in one of the narrative sections (ch. 11-12).  We know this because the previous section ended with Mt 11:1, "when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples."  Our concern is the first thirteen verse which breaks down into the two topics of discussion: plucking grain (vv. 1-9) and healing a man's hand (vv. 10-13).

The first section, (vv. 1-9) highlights what is commonly called "works of necessity."  Eating is a necessity to continue living.  The scenario is simple.  The disciples were hungry and plucked some corn to eat on the sabbath which was noticed by the Pharisee to be in violation of their own practices (tradition) (vv. 1-2).  Jesus responses to their question with two distinct Old Testament examples: David eating food (not explicitly forbidden but only when for profit, Dt 23:25), when he was hungry (vv. 3-4) and then the activity of priests on the sabbath (v. 5).  Jesus changes the focus with a contrasting conjunction "but" switching the focus to higher and more internal heart matter.  Jesus claims deity in this passage, "the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath" (v. 8).  This directly relates to the two previous verses: one, he is the "greater" one present and two, the changed heart condition had priority over external worship.  What needs to be noted is that Christ does not abolish the sabbath as a day of rest but instead declared himself to be it's Lord.  In this first example, works of necessity is the focus under Christ's authority over this day.

So if we draw in principles what could they be?

1) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath?
2) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus healed sick people on the Sabbath?
3) Can we at least acknowledge Jesus pointed people to himself on the Sabbath?

Historically, when people mention works of mercy or necessity, do they have fair ground to do so?

Compare this to today: (any number of illustrations will make the point)

1)  Should we go out to eat at a restaurant on the Lord's day?
2)  Should I mow the grass, hunt, fish, or trap, on the Lord's day?
3)  Should I spend hours of time involved with sporting adventures on the Lord's day?

Rarely are people actually concerned about working on the Lord's day.  Yes we could even talk about heart issues and motivations as well.  Personally, I'm glad there are police officers, firemen, and doctors who care for others seven days a week.  They are doing works of mercy and necessity for you and me (give them your thanks for it).

Are these liberty issues?  You decide.  Not matter what the example.  Someone and somewhere will always have a name to call you for anything you choose to do or not do?

May we enjoy a good Lord's day of worship each week (another topic for another thread).

These issues will have to be addressed later in liberty issues.
Hope this helps some in this issue.
Comments encouraged.

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive order among elders? (Part Five)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three       Series Part Four

Pastoral Hierarchy: Is there a prescriptive or descriptive case for an order among elders/pastors?

Ever heard the terms senior pastor, youth pastor, assistant pastor, college and career pastor?  If you have heard of these terms, were they of equal pay and authority?  Was one of them over the others?

How about among those who have some form of lay/paid elders in their local church.  Are they all of equal authority?  Are some more authoritative than others or do they all get one equal vote when decisions are made?  Ever wondered why?

Before covering some of the basic scriptural texts addressing this issue so comments are needed.
First, some use the above terms simply in a pragmatic way.  Allow me to elaborate.  A church may reach a size where either the one pastor or the congregation feels that more help is needed.  They therefore "call" another individual to fill/serve in another "pastoral" position.  Well, you can't just call them both pastor.  So one becomes the senior pastor and the next what is called his assistant.  If given an age category perhaps youth, college/career or senior citizen pastor.

So in essence, they actually have a "plurality" of elders within their local church, however in this case they both are normally "on staff" or "paid" elders as opposed to a "lay" elder who has a full/part-time job to help pay the bills (it must be noted that in some churches even the senior pastor is technically a "lay" pastor since he works a full/part-time job to meet his family's financial needs).  Normally, but not always the second or third pastors are also ordained by the local church (but not always).  Or add in another variable his wife works a full/part-time job so that he can pastor a local church (I'm sure there is a broad array of views on this one, including paying the "hubbies" way through seminary).

Second, some use the above terms as part of a church hierarchy.  This means that some church leaders are actually in a position above other church leaders not part of their local congregation.  This means that leaders outside of that local church (or a group of them) can make decisions that are then placed upon other local churches.  This is no small matter.  Sometimes the group outside of the local church actually owns the building the people are meeting.  Think of the consequences of this.  If the local church does not submit to or obey the rules/laws/decrees of the higher governing body they can and have actually lose their church (sometimes pastor/elders have been removed from their pulpits).  We will have to address the one main text for this concept in a later thread (just for a hint: try reading Acts 15 and think in prescriptive/descriptive terms for local churches today).  Many entire denominations function within this structure (note your KJV still retains the church structure of "bishops" and "elders").

Third, some simply have a combination of the above two positions,  But is there any biblical precedent either descriptively or prescriptively to have some church leaders more authoritative than others, both of which are identified as "elders" or "pastors."

There are mainly two ways in which this question is answered.  You decide whether the texts are actually teaching the relationship of pastors to other pastors in the same local church.  Or on the other hand, are we looking for any hierarchy found in scripture and using it for justification?  Is this being descriptive, prescriptive or neither one?

First, is the relationship among the twelve apostles.  From this concept, two items are extrapolated.  Peter always appears first in the listing of the twelve.  This is determined to mean he is more authoritative creating an ecclesiastical hierarchy.  Within this grouping Peter, Andrew, James, and John appear together at the top of the list (Mt 10).  Acts 1 keeps the top four but changes around the order "Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew."  Unfortunately, the listing breaks down for the mount of transfiguration (Mt 17), Andrew is nowhere to be found.  So this position has to rely entirely upon the listing of the twelve exclusively or simply that Peter appears first each time or that he answers first on a regular basis (Mt 16).  If I'm not mistaken, didn't Rome do this already with him?

Second, as has been discussed in an earlier thread in this series 1 Timothy 5:17-18 is a key text in this issue.  Do some elders teach and other elders rule?  Do all elders rule and some teach?  Or is it the same elders doing the ruling and teaching?  Is it the grammar of the passage that actually produces a pastoral hierarchy or are there outside factors?  You make the decision.

Comments encouraged.  Hope this helps anyone in these areas.
I have tried to accurately represent each position through probably not every possible caveat.

Post-Exile Sabbath Observance (Part Three)

Series Part One     Series Part Two

Post-Exile Sabbath Observance and the Sabbath/Lord's Day Issue

So if you had the law again after 70 years of captivity and were free to practice (obey) it again, which parts would you extract as most important?  Which parts would you be most zealous to reinstate (I am assuming they did not observe the sabbath in any form during captivity)?

Would you reinstate the sabbath?  Or would you be glad to throw off the law under the guise of legalistic oppression?  Again as reminder, does this text only apply to that time period or..... Consider Nehemiah 10: 28-33.

Two keys items were highlighted: relation to culture (v. 30) and sabbath observance (vv. 31-33).

First in relation to culture there is a clear reference for believers not to marry unbelievers.  So is the descriptive or prescriptive?  Three chapters later Nehemiah (13:23-31) this idea of intermarriage with the surrounding culture is brought up again.  Here Nehemiah actually calls it "sin" and "evil" (v. 26-27).  So even if this is only descriptive, the people still refused to obey explicit commands (prescriptive) given to Israel in Deut 25 related to intermarriage without the surrounding culture.  Is it possible that the NT would repeat this concept of not being "unequally yoked" with unbelievers?  Even if you don't believe this applies to marriage, you have to at least acknowledge there is a command to limit interaction between the two.

Second in relation to the sabbath there is a clear reference not to be entangled in unnecessary business on the sabbath.  Even if this does not apply to the Lord's day, I'm still glad Chick Fil A is closed on the Lord's Day.  I applaud any business that chooses to do so.

This issue is obviously a concern to Nehemiah.  He brings it up in 13:15-22 (same as the intermarriage issue).  Again he describes their practice of business on the sabbath as "evil" (v. 17-18).
So same question needs repeated: Is this merely descriptive or prescriptive for today?
They obviously still tried to apply it after being in captivity for 70 years.  I am convinced that even if it was commanded of us Christians would still find a way to avoid obeying it.

We could test case tithing, it still finds ways to be ignored (Abraham received them before the law was given)?

We could test case the sabbath as well (of course the connection with the Lord's day is needed), this is where we will turn our attention?

We still will need to address the passages related to not being under the law and liberty/conscience issues.

I'm afraid with the infatuation that even Christians have with sports on the Lord's day, dropping Lord's day evening attendance, and even pastoral lack of concern will never allow this issue to get the weight it once had when we still had "blue laws."  I am certain our Christian churches are not a Plymouth plantation.

Hope this helps.  More to come.
Comments encouraged.

The Lord's Day/Sabbath and the Ten Commandments (Series Part Two)

Series Part One

The Lord's Day and Sabbath Issue.  What does the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) teach us in relation to this issue?  I find it ironic in this issue that many complain about their removal from court house lawns and public places and then turn around to find multiple ways not to follow them anyway.  

By way of review, the previous article began this discussion with the seventh day of the creation week (Genesis 2).  Some Christians place the bedrock for the Sabbath as a creation ordinance.  Other start here in the Ten commandments.  So how would these two options relate to the prescriptive/descriptive discussion?

First, if the sabbath observance is attached to creation and not the Mosaic law, then it like other concepts rooted in creation still has weight today (think marriage, family, etc...).  On the other hand, if the sabbath observance depends upon a prescriptive command rooted in the mosaic law, then their is a greater likelihood it could be laid aside as a "civil" or "ceremonial" portion of the law, in some fashion removed through Christ's sacrificial death on the cross for our sins.

What is the command under discussion?
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD, thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, they manservant, nor they maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within they gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is them is, and rested the seventh day wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Ex 20:8-11).

Deut. 5: 15 applies the fourth commandment to the nation's actual exodus from bondage and not to the creation itself, "And remember that thout wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day."

Let's consider the background.  This is fourth of the ten commandments given to the nation of Israel following the nations exodus from bondage in Egypt.  But what people want to know is how much if any applies to me today?  When Jesus died how much of the law did he fulfill?  Is there NT precedent to answer or at least help to think about this issue?  Even if we can't agree as to any NT applications, perhaps at a minimum if sola scriptura means anything, we can find at least in principle, applications to help with the sabbath day/Lord's day issue.

With that stated I would at this time like to consider two NT examples before later discussing other related texts and issues.

First, what was the Messiah's view of the Decalogue?  Let's consider Mat 19:16-22.  An individual comes to Christ asking about "eternal life" (v. 16).  We are concerned with Jesus' response.  He actually quotes five of the ten commandments (vv. 18-19).  Although he did not quote the one in question here, it is interesting that Christ still believed the law was applicable to his time in the first century.  But perhaps your thinking that was before the cross.

Second, consider another example (after the cross and directly given in imperative form to a local church).  Consider Eph 6:1-2 (Col 3 repeats the command but makes no connection to the decalogue).  In this context Paul directly applies the fifth commandment to children in the local church.  In verse one children are given an imperative, "Obey your parents in the Lord."  He directly follows this by quoting the fifth commandment,"Honour thy father and mother," as though it still applies and is a motivating factor for believers in the church.

What are some take away's from this idea:

First, if sola scriptura means anything (not just a phrase to make us sound "Cool, Trendy, and Reformed"), we need to be able to find commands and/or principles to govern every issue in life.  If not then stop using the phrase sola scriptura because you really mean "mostly scriptura."

Second, both Jesus and Paul believed the ten commands can and should be quoted and/or applied to NT situations.  What is at questions is must the fourth command be repeated in the NT (as a command) not just an observance throughout the gospels and Acts to be applicable today?  This question is actually a huge deal.  Check out the literature on this one.  This is a huge hurdle for this particular command to the NT church.

Third, name calling (think ad hominem) will not help in this issue.  It certainly is not an exegetical or theological argument (sabbatarian, legalist, antinomian, liberty, license, etc...).

At the end of the day, does the Lord's day mean anything to us in 2016 at all (assuming any kind of parallel can be shown in days ahead)? In closing I would like to quote from one of my professors concerning this day, "Tragically, it is all too common that the only difference in practice between Christians and the ungodly on Sunday is the couple of hours spent in church." (p. 104, The Beauty of Holiness by Michal P. V. Barett).  Does this describe us?

If your respond is "but I have liberties," then you've already decided.

Just some thoughts to consider.
Thoughts and comments encouraged.
More to come concerning this issue of the Sabbath and the Lord's Day.

The Temple Tax: The Priority of Avoiding Offense over Personal Liberty (my rights)

The Temple Tax: The Priority of Avoiding Offense over Personal Liberty (my rights)

(Small digression from Sabbath/Lord's Day series on related topic of Christian Liberty)

Ever wondered how this text could apply today in 2016? 

Is freedom really more important that not offending others?

Are my rights (personal liberty) more important?

In broader evangelicalism, is this simply a matter of grace versus law (in relation to Christian living)?

Consider Jesus' teaching on this issue from Mt 17:24-27.  I came across this text in my M'Cheyne Daily Bible Reading schedule.

The question is asked of one of Jesus' disciples, namely Peter, "Doth not your master pay tribute?"

What is this tribute?  Multiple study Bibles agree that it was an amount paid by males over 20 years of age (equivalent of two days pay) (ESV Study Bible, MacArthur, Ref. Hert., and Ryrie).

More important than the amount was the focus on who was required to pay this temple tax.  Jesus responds to Peter focusing on who should pay this tax (v. 25), "What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of strangers?"

Peter answers Jesus' question correctly, "Of strangers" (v. 25).  All four study Bibles agree to Jesus' second statement, "then are the children free."  Jesus is stating, "Jesus is the Son of God and therefore exempt from the temple tax" (Ref. Herit. Study Bible).  The other three agree with similar wording focusing on Christ's deity.

This being said, it is Jesus' follow up statement that bears weight on this question, "lest we should offend them," (v. 27).  Jesus' focus is not on a person's rights or liberty.  Don't forget all three study Bibles even made the connection to his own deity in relation to the scenario.  Jesus focused on not offending them, not his rights, privileges, or liberty. This term "offend" is a verb with a very similar root to the term used in Rom 14, "stumbling block."  This something Christians are not supposed to cause other brethren to commit through their own actions.

Lets import some present day scenarios into this equation:

1.  What actions might you be doing (which may be your rights/liberty) but are causing other believers to stumble?

2. What good intentions might you have in some endeavor but are causing other believers to fall into sin?

3. Think of all the things people do which may be their liberty/right (again it might not be), music, Bible translations, entertainment choices, sports, etc... and it is causing another brother to stumble?

Is your liberty really that important?  Obviously, Jesus Himself did not think his own rights were more important.

Hope this helps someone.  Comments encouraged.

The Lord's Day or Sabbath: Prescriptive, Descriptive, or Just a Matter of Christian Liberty? Part One

The Lord's Day or Sabbath: Prescriptive, Descriptive, or Just a Matter of Christian Liberty?

I have gathered some thoughts here after reading many books on this topic.  Sadly, a growing many in Evangelical Christianity treat this day like any other day of the week.  Consider your church attendance, which service is the most attended?  Least attended?  Is there a dramatic drop off on Wednesday night (assuming there is still a prayer meeting/Bible study still held)?  Ever wondered why?  Perhaps your the victim or proponent of the latest post-modern fad: small groups.  We will address this topic in another article.  But for now just consider it in relation to the Lord's day.

Just by way of reminder, prescriptive texts are more command based in nature.  Descriptive texts showed what was going on in that point in history.  Christian Liberty and conscience is greatly affected by these two categories.

As we begin consider the view of our past.  Chapter 21, para. 7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith: Of Religious Worship, and the Sabbath Day,

"As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him: which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath."

Lets not forget, this one of the main driving forces causing the Pilgrims to flee all they knew and come to the new world.  Packed on the Mayflower sailing across the ocean, for one of many reasons: the liberty and license of practice displayed on the Lord's day (and that was nearly 400 years ago).  I'm sure they would role over in shame for what goes on in many evangelical churches in the name of worship on the Lord's day.

This is how good and godly men thought of this day.  How do we think of it today in 2016?  What do we offer up in the name of worship on this day?  I would simply like to overview the scriptural data on the subject, because quite frankly most people have not be taught concerning this subject.  On the other hand, many others know its content but are governed by another principle known simply as Christian Liberty (which is appropriate in Biblical proportion but unfortunately today is simply another category under the title of grace).

So with that aside, let's consider some basics of the Biblical data.  This is the first area of debate: the origin of the Sabbath.  And yes this has been disagreed upon throughout church history (the puritans and reformers didn't even agree on this one).

Is it based on the original creation?  "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:2-3).  Is this the foundational text needed to establish that sabbath existed before the giving of the Mosaic law (which could then be dismissed as only a civil or ceremonial law)?  To be fair with those who see no connection, there is no command in this verse to observe the sabbath.

Consider two different study Bible comments here, first the ESV Study Bible (Zondervan), "These words provide the basis for the obligation that God placed on the Israelites to rest from their normal labor on the Sabbath day."  Notice how the notes don't make any application directly from this text, not even a principle for humanity, but tie it to Israel and the Mosaic law.  On a similar note the KJV Study Bible (Zondervan), "The first record of obligatory sabbath observance is of Israel on her way from Egypt to Sinai (Ex 16, and according to Neh 9:13-14 the sabbath was not an official covenant obligation until the giving of the law at mount Sinai."

Notice the opposite from the notes from the Reformation Heritage Study Bible, "The principle of setting apart one day in seven for rest and devotion to God is a creation ordinance" and then again later "the establishment of the Sabbath at creation shows that its moral obligation was not limited to the law of Moses, but abides as long as creation."

Note the key difference: when does the obligation begin for humans.  Does it begin in the creation account (Gen 2) or in the giving of the law (Ex 20)?  I would suggest based on Ex 16:22-30, the principle for a day of rest has started before the giving of the Mosaic Law.

I would suggest this fundamental disagreement finds itself later played out in applications toward the Lord's day, especially worship services and liberty of conscience.  There are many texts and topics to discuss in relation to this issue.

We will pick up this topic next in relation to the giving of the Decalogue (the ten commandments).  Especially the fourth commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exo 20: 8).

Comments and discussion encouraged.

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity (Part Four)

Series Part One       Series Part Two        Series Part Three

The Prescriptive Authority of the New Testament Epistles in Determining Local Church Polity

Part one of this series focused on the passages directly related to the authority or responsibility relegated to or practiced by the local church congregation (the majority of these references were in relation to church discipline issues).  Part two of this series focused on the passages referring to the idea of having multiple pastor/elders within one local church (three from Acts, four from the epistles).  The third article focused on the interpretive struggle between identifying descriptive and prescriptive texts.

Ultimately, these concepts will have to be reconciled with each other.  As to how they are reconciled shows up more practically in our local church polities (which coincidentally appears to fall along denominational lines, but not exclusively). 

Consider the options, church polity can place some, most, or no authority with the local congregation (this option also brings into account other issues such as the priesthood of the believer and the perspicuity of scripture, or all the church discipline passages).  Another option would be to have one primary pastor/elder with no authority given to the local congregation.  Perhaps a third option would be to have some form of relationship entailing both the congregation and the pastor/elder.  But even with a melding of these two ideas, it leaves untouched the idea of how to handle the passages seeming to teach multiple elder/pastors within one congregation.  Even after solving this issue, we still have to address the role and purpose which the New Testament assigns to the elder/pastor.

It is this dilemma (if there is one) which necessitates a focus upon the descriptive and prescriptive texts.  Which texts in relation to church polity merely described what they did in the first century but are no longer binding upon local churches today (the descriptive position)?  Or which texts addressing this issues directly related to us today either by command or by principle/precedent (the prescriptive position)?  Don't forget how you relate these two texts together will shift the weight of authority to one of these two categories.

 

Let's consider the four possible options: (in relations to church polity—this seems to come close to a special pleading)

First, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are descriptive.  Second, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are also descriptive.  Third, the narrative passages in Acts are prescriptive and the epistles are also prescriptive.  Fourth, the narrative passages in Acts are descriptive and the epistles are prescriptive.  A fifth possible option which shows how hard this issue is would be that Acts and the epistle both contain descriptive and prescriptive passages (which is probably the best option).

The title of this post tells you where I personally believe the biblical weight should be placed in understanding these five potential options.  This position enables the epistles themselves to interpret what is applicable for today.  This position also allows for keeping the authority in the text but also reaching different conclusions on this issue.  By way of digression, please understand that as you look at your NT you are not seeing the order in which the books of your NT were written.  A quick glance at the dating of the books will help the reader see that the NT epistles were individually written throughout the narrative of the book of Acts (some even after the events of Acts).

Before directly addressing the texts under debate, consider some of the options (if you were asked directly) as to how they weigh in on related issues:

1.  Should we ordain homosexuals as pastor/elders in the local church?  (I'm not asking you what your position is on this, but on what actual texts do you appeal to on this issue--where are they located?).

2.  Should we ordain both men and women as pastor/elders in the local church? (If you quickly think of 1 Tim 3 or Tit 1, what ramifications might there be if the epistles are only descriptive, or worse case only Paul's opinion on the issue, or only addressing a first century situation)?

3.  Should we financially support every pastor/elder the local church ordains?  If so on what basis do you make a distinction between paid and unpaid pastor/elders?

I would like to offer some thoughts on the key texts related to this issue of a plurality of elders within a local church (not necessarily answers, but contrary thoughts to those dogmatic on this issue):

1 Timothy 3:1-2, 8, 12

    a.  The focus on the the overseer here is for the office identified in the singular and with the article.     b.  Depending on the position you are trying to defend, this will determine the function of the article seen in the text.

    c.   Taking this into account, deacons appears in the plural twice (vv. 8, 12) in contrast to "the overseer" (v. 1).  How does this affect the article appearing before overseer but not before deacons plural?  What article usage will be applied and why?

1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine."

This text hinges on the function of the word "especially."  Think of these two primary options:

     a. Does it mean that all elders "rule well" and only some of these "labour in word and doctrine?"  Think as though one group is a sub-set of the whole group.  You could do a word study of how the Greek term translated "especially" occurs in the NT (this might help avoiding theological based options).

     b.  Does it mean that all the elders "rule well" and this same group are the ones "who labour in the word and doctrine?"  Technically think of an appositional relationship, "the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, (that is) they who labour in the word and doctrine."

2,  Tit 1:5 "that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee"

 a.  For this text to bear weight on the plurality position, the understanding would need to be there is only one local church in each city (of which there is no reason to believe there is only one church in each city, especially considering the number of house-church settings mentions in the NT).

  b.  This text only supports the idea that Titus is to ordain elders in each city (there is no reference to whether there should be one or more elders in each local church).  You would have to equate city with the word church to get help for plurality in this text.

3.  Acts, 14, 15, 20

      a.  All these passages in Acts depend on the fact that they are prescriptive and not just descriptive for the plurality of elders in each local church to have weight.

      b.  The plurality of elders position must still wrestle with the house-church model presented in the NT, the potential understanding of "church" as the universal and not local church, or perhaps even if "the church" should be understood collectively for the local churches in that particular city.

These are some general thoughts categorizing what I am seeing in print on these issues.  Some even to the point of calling congregational polity "satanic."  The last articles in this series still need to address that actual biblical function and/or role pastor/elders have in the NT.  Also if the "plurality" texts in Acts are the actual model, what would then be the hierarchy among them?  Who decides?  Unfortunately, wrestling with the prescriptive and descriptive concepts is not always easy, but to think it doesn't exist or doesn't help is not being academically honest.

Just some ideas to consider.

Hope this helps some on this issue.  More to come.

Drop a line and tell me what your thinking.

Book Recommendation: Hole in Our Holiness: Filling the Gap between Gospel Passion and the Pursuit of Godliness By Kevin DeYoung

Hole in Our Holiness: Filling the Gap between Gospel Passion and the Pursuit of Godliness By Kevin DeYoung 

This book was a rather refreshing read several years back.  It is a welcome reflection upon a great deal of false teaching in the area of progressive sanctification (that is assuming you believe your sanctification can progress) in growth.  Many do not.  Many chaff at the idea of imperatives, holiness, godliness, and piety.  It is much too easy for way to many people influenced by today's trendy authors to whip out the straw man, ad hominems (you know: legalism, judgmental, etc...).  

I recommend this book to any seek how to grow in holiness and sanctification.  Yes, there is more to sanctification than rehearsing some indicatives over and over and over.  Far too many churches today have the doctrinal ducks in a row but the way they live.  Well if you didn't know otherwise, you wouldn't know they were followers of Christ at all (and that's putting it charitably).

I am including a very meaty and detailed outline from the text.  Please fell free to comment on the issue of progressive sanctification.

1.      Chapter One: Mind the Gap

1.1. Holiness is the New Camping

1.2. Who Says?

1.2.1.      Is Our Obedience known to All?

1.2.2.      Is Our Heaven a Holy Place?

1.2.3.      Are We Great Commission Christians?

1.3.Why so Holey?

1.4. But he (may) have this against you

1.5. Chapter One Study Questions

1.5.1.      What come to mind when you hear the word “holiness”?  Are your thoughts primarily positive?  Negative?  Encouraging?  Discouraging?  Burdensome?  Freeing?

1.5.2.      Growing up, how did your church, family, and friends speak of holiness?

1.5.3.      Is the holiness of heaven of delightful thought for you?  Does it equal the delight you have in thinking about heaven as a place of love, peace, enjoyment, and happiness?  Why or why not?

1.5.4.      Why does there appear to be a “hole in our holiness” today?  Which of the reasons given by the author resonate with your own struggles with holiness?

1.5.5.      What have been the major themes of your Christian life?  Has holiness

2.      Chapter Two: The Reason for Redemption

2.1. A Necessary Good

2.2. A Necessary Explanation

2.3. Chapter Two Study Questions:

2.3.1.      What reasons come to mind when you think about why God saved you?

2.3.2.      What are some passages in Scriptures that have impacted your life of holiness?  Why do these hold significance?

2.3.3.      Do you find the pursuit of holiness intimidating?  Why or why not?

2.3.4.      Does it seem disagreeable to stress personal holiness?

3.      Chapter Three: Piety’s Pattern

3.1.Got and still growing

3.2. Cheap Imitations

3.2.1.      Holiness is not mere rule keeping

3.2.2.      Holiness is not generational imitation

3.2.3.      Holiness is not generic spirituality

3.2.4.      Holiness is not “finding your true self”

3.2.5.      Holiness is not the way of the world

3.3. The Real Deal

3.3.1.      Holiness looks like the renewal of God’s image in us

3.3.2.      Holiness looks like a life marked by virtue instead of vice

3.3.3.      Holiness looks like a clean conscience

3.3.4.      Holiness looks like obedience to God’s commands

3.3.5.      Holiness looks like Christlikeness

3.4.Chapter Three Review Questions

3.4.1.      What assurance and confidence does definitive sanctification give?

3.4.2.      Where has the church in previous generations gone wrong in its pursuit of holiness?  What errors do you see today?  Are some of them present in your own understanding of holiness?

3.4.3.      As you read through the list of virtues and vices in this chapter, what are some of the vices in your life that you need to get rid of?  What are some of the virtues you see and need to continue to encourage?

3.4.4.      Of what things in your life would you have trouble saying, “I can thank God for this?”

3.4.5.      Do you know the Ten Commandments?  Do they shape your living?  How?

4.      Chapter Four: The Impetus for the Imperatives

4.1.What’s Left for the Law?

4.2. The Grace of Law

4.3. The Law of Love and the Love of Law

4.4. The Medicine for our Motivation

4.5. Chapter Four Review Questions:

4.5.1.      Do you delight in the law of the Lord?  Do you see the law as an expression of God’s grace?  Why or why not?

4.5.2.      What motivations for holiness listed in this chapter are currently the “best medicine” for you?

4.5.3.      Which motivations for holiness have you seldom heard in sermons or within the church?  Why do you think that is?

4.5.4.      Think of a sin you are struggling with.  Which biblical motivations for holiness provided in this chapter are an encouragement to you to pursue holiness and to mortify this sin?

5.      Chapter Five: The Pleasure of God and the Possibility of Godliness

5.1. A Gospel-Centered Pancake

5.2. Imagine the Possibilities

5.3. A Perfect Storm

5.4. Filthy Rags or Fully Pleasing?

5.5. The Hazard of Moral Equivalence

5.6. Sons, not Illegitimate Children

5.7. Feeling Clean

5.8. Chapter Five Review Questions:

5.8.1.      Has your pursuit of personal holiness been short-circuited in certain ways?  How?

5.8.2.      When you are told that the Scriptures teach that righteousness is possible, that you truly can do good works, and you can please God, what is your reaction?  Does it surprise you?  Encourage you?

5.8.3.      Do you allow yourself not only to be convicted while reading the Scriptures, listening to sermons, and reading Christian books, but also to be encouraged at the progress and “success” within your Christian life?

6.      Chapter Six: Spirit-powered, Gospel-driven, faith-fueled effort

6.1. Holiness by Holy Spirit Power

6.2. Good Deeds based on Good News

6.3. Standing on the Promises

6.4. Effort is not a Four-letter word

6.5. Chapter Six Review Questions

7.      Chapter Seven: Be Who you are

7.1. Jesus Christ and Union Station

7.2. Union Confusion

7.3. From Being with Christ to Being Like Christ

7.4. Making the Reality Real

7.5. The Other Romans Road

8.      Chapter Eight: Saints and Sexual Immorality

8.1.Run, Baby, Run!

8.2. Members of Christ

8.3. Holiness in a Hookup World

8.4. Not even a hint

8.5. Fit for a King

8.6. A Pastoral Post-script

9.      Chapter Nine: Abide and Obey

9.1. Union and Communion

9.2. Keeping Commandments, Abiding in Love

9.3. Four Practices for Oneness with Christ

9.3.1.      We pursue communion with Christ through prayer.

9.3.2.      We pursue communion with Christ through the word of truth.

9.3.3.      We pursue communion with Christ through fellowship with other Christians.

9.3.4.      We pursue communion with Christ through partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

9.4. Extraordinary Holiness through Ordinary Means

10.  Chapter Ten: That All May See Your Progress

10.1.        Repentance as a way of Life

10.2.        What Kind of Grief?

10.3.        Growing into a Good-Looking Christian