Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | mouse2 | 50805 | ||
You wrote: Since the structure is as you have described it, how do you reconcile your structure with the New Testaments passage which demonstrate that other's did have authority over local churches in the New Testament. For example, in Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem so that the Apostles and elders could settle a question of doctrine. In verse 20, they wrote to the church in question to 'tell them' that they must do certain things. Further, v. 24 speaks of an 'authorization' which the men in question did not have. But, the implication is that such an authorization could exist. 1 Tim. 1:3 speaks of Timothy staying in Ephesus t command certain men to stop teaching a false doctrine. Titus 1:5 speaks of Titus being told to stay in Crete and to appoint Elders in the local church. “The New Testament teaches that each local congregation is self-governing. The elders only shepherd the flock of which they are members (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1). No earthly organizational structure is mentioned beyond the local congregation. While First Century churches were autonomous, they did have interaction with other congregations. The brethren in Ephesus wrote to the church in Corinth and exhorted them to receive Apollos (Acts 18:27). One writer noted, ‘It goes without saying that, had Apollos been unworthy, the evident concern of the brethren at Ephesus for the brethren at Achaia would have been shown in warning them about him’. The church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to help the congregation in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Nothing is said about Antioch first asking for such help. Antioch could have decided, in harmony with their autonomy, that they did not need Barnabas. However, the congregation in Jerusalem did not violate Antioch’s autonomy by sending Barnabas. In 1 Timothy 1:3 and Titus 1:5 preachers were sent to local congregations to correct some problems and none of this violated the autonomy of either congregation.” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church You wrote: Concerning the Church of Christ, I was simply trying to say that it is hard to have a 'group' called the 'Church of Christ' if there is no process to identity a church as being 'Church of Christ'. Let me see if I can do a better job of explaining what I see in Scripture. Do you agree at least to the point of a universal church? A church (“invisible”) to which every faithful believer belongs, added to by the Lord. The Lord Jesus is the only one who can add members (Acts 2:47) or remove them (Rev 2 and 3) from the church universal. Would you agree that is true? “Every Christian was simply a member of one united body of believers. Various congregations existed (Corinth, Rome, Ephesus, etc.), but they were all part of the same body. Each congregation practiced and believed the same doctrines or teachings, that is, what was being revealed through the apostles (1 Corinthians 4:17; 14:37). Christians were admonished to remain united, divisions based on following certain leaders within the church” (Acts 20:28-30), “or dividing up the body of Christ into various sects or flavors of Christianity were condemned (1 Cor. 1:10). In fact, even sects based on following elevating one apostle over all others were rebuked (1:12-13).” Source: www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net Bible Authority: Lesson 18: The Local Church and the Universal Church The local congregation, the church of Christ, whether it be in Beijing, China, Nome, Alaska, Johannesburg, South Africa, or anywhere upon the face of the earth, it is a group of faithful believers carrying out the work set for it (the church) to do, in accordance with Scripture. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that help any? Mouse2 |
||||||
2 | need for a bible-anyone | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 50811 | ||
Greetings Mouse2! Thanks for the response! I would have to differ with your first source though. Titus 1:5 says that Titus stayed to 'appoint' elders. How could this possibly support total local autonomy? Even 1 Tim. 1:3 would seem to violate this principle, because Timothy (an outsider) was commanding individuals within a local church about their doctrine. And, nothing is said in your source about Acts 15, where the Jerusalem church sent a letter to Antioch with instructions to be obeyed. Concerning your second point, I do agree that there is an invisible universal Church. That is why I was concerned about some of the things I was hearing about the Churches of Christ, since they seem to believe that that invisible Church is only made up of those who believe like the Churches of Christ. I disagree however that every church had a common doctrine. Most of the New Testament was written to address false doctrines which were creeping into the various local churches through a variety of sources. But, while I don't like everything about denominationalism, I still think that the universal Church is a reality even with denominations. Everyone who has been washed by the blood of Christ, whether they call themselves Church of Christ, Baptist, Lutheran, ect..., are part of that Body of Christ, just like local churches are all part of one body. We can begin to 'restore' unity by uniting under one Lord, not teaching or preaching that only our particular brand of Christianity is the 'true' Church. Disclaimer: This is not to say that every group is Christian. There are many cults which deny the essential doctrines of the Bible, but still want to be considered Christian. They are not part of the Body of Christ. But, the differences which divide most denominations don't fall into this category. Well, the basketball game is coming on! Got to go! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||