Thank you Brother Greg for your answers. As always, one answer to essential questions leads to others. Could you please describe the nature and extent of the authority involved in apostolic and bishopric model . Is the authority more doctrinal in nature (Jerusalem Council) or more ecclesiastical? Also, is apostolic model more of a local body’s tacit recognition of gifting and voluntary submission by that body of believers? Or, are apostles recognized and approved by other apostles? Is the bishopric model more of an institution with ecclesiastical succession ?

_________________
Robert

I would humbly like to offer a counter-article from the Gospel Coalition:

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/come-to-the-father-ignatius-of-antioch-and-his-calling-to-be-a-martyr

It is well documented and not based upon merely the presuppositions of its author.

When I thought about these issues in the past it was helpful for me to see how the apostles responded or treated false apostles, prophets and teachers in the Scriptures. It is at least noteworthy that they did not disavow these imposters on the basis of anything other than their motives or doctrines. None of the writers asserted that such men were not ordained, affirmed or failed to be commissioned by other leaders, churches or apostles. It would have been very easy for the writers to merely have said this guy or that guy isn’t a part of the apostolic chain or on the “ordained” list. I’m not being argumentative but Scripturally, I think it may be somewhat instructive to note how the original apostles considered apostolic authority. Have you considered this before? Again, when it comes to authority especially, being led by Scripture is far more preferable than traditions.

_________________
Robert

Brother Greg,

I understand what you've said. I have a couple of issues and maybe concerns. First, and most important, do you mean that apostolic tradition "upholds Scripture"? I thought apostolic doctrine was Scripture. Which "church" doctrines do you consider apostolic that aren't in Scripture? My thinking has always been that the original and only apostolic doctrine was from those who were taught directly by Jesus. There are other apostles who probably never saw the resurrected Christ or were taught by Him in the Scripture, but I'm referencing only the "apostolic doctrine".

Second, I'm not sure at all that Paul is an example of a church appointed apostle. I've seen many great teachers try to use the Antioch commissioning as a basis for local body ordination and it just doesn't fit the facts at all.

Paul entered into his apostolic calling long before the Antioch church prophets and teachers were used by the Holy Spirit to commission Paul for his first missionary journey. In fact, Paul had been appointed directly face to face by Jesus as an apostle in Jesus own words. Further, the Spirit through Ananias (not an apostle and they were around to do it if God desired it) commissioned Paul and then Paul was taught directly by Jesus for many years prior to his Antioch missionary commissioning. I wouldn't characterize his Antioch experience as an appointment or ordination but rather as a commissioning. Many people who have advocated Paul as an example of church ordination or even used him as an example of apostolic authority for today have failed to fully take into account all that means. For example, Paul is very clear when making the case for his apostolic credentials with the churches he served when he was battling false apostles in those churches that he based his authority as coming from the fact that he had seen the resurrected Christ and had been called to be an apostle directly by Christ and then backs up this claim by saying he was taught by no man, even the other apostles, and then points to the signs and wonders he did ( apostolic evidence ), to his motives (faithfulness to Jesus and a fatherly love for the people as opposed to the false apostles ) and finally to his doctrine. This is how Paul and the Spirit directly persuade the churches of Paul's apostolic authority. This is direct Scriptural God given justification for Paul's apostolic authority. Not once does he point to an ordination in his arguments to the churches other than to point out that the other apostles affirmed the accuracy of his gospel message.

There is a great deal of discussion by Paul in the Epistles of what his authority involved and how it was established. If Paul becomes or is used as an example or for Scriptural support for a system, then his example simply does not support many proffered patterns for apostolic appointment, credentials or authority.

Finally, Paul did tell Timothy and Titus to go appoint elders in all the churches. As you say, these men who were to become elders were already approved as leaders by the local bodies and the word used in Acts concerning their appointment is fundamentally a word for voting by the body ( ie., a show of hands ) Timothy and Titus were sent it seems to affirm a leadership already in place. That really doesn't rise to the level of ordination, at least as ordination is used in current practice.

Again, the issue of authority in the local and larger church is huge. Authority and submission to it is a major part of God's natural and spiritual creation and order. The question of authority shouldn't be resolved by a resort to traditions for such a critical issue in the Kingdom. Traditions are fallible and when we use fallible interpretations concerning critical issues we should be extremely careful as Jesus railed against the traditions of men that usurped or created a system not in line with the will of God. I'm not suggesting insincerity on anyone's part or an intention to thwart God's will. Good men have gone astray trying to use weak or non existent Scriptural support to back their ideas of the proper spiritual authority in the Church.

Creating unity in the body should be sought, cherished and loved. However, it can't be achieved by everyone agreeing to follow a pattern and structure of authority that compels or impels people to spiritually fall in line behind it unless God has specifically outlined that pattern. Just because really good men with really good intentions come up with a pattern that seems historically or practically to instill or even impose unity doesn't make something more right than Scripture would dictate. It might make some sense and believe me I would love to see a lot more unity in the Protestant faith, but nonetheless, the self imposed solution for good reasons may still be wrong in the sense it is not Jesus' will for His bride. I'm not saying one pattern is evil and another is not. But, the plumb line for an especially important even critical doctrine like authority must be Scripture only it seems to me. I think I am in alignment in what I'm saying on the Biblical treatment of apostolic authority but am very open to better instruction.

_________________
Robert

Thank you for those responses Brother Greg. Was I off base to point to the arguments Paul used to defend his apostleship?

We know that Timothy was an Evangelist and part of Paul’s apostolic teamfrom direct Scripture statements.

Wouldn’t you agree that Paul’s laying on of hands over Timothy ( arguably for imparting gifting) and the approval/appointing of elders in all the churches is a Scripturally tenuous thread to hang current church structures on ? I personally believe Scripture supports apostolic five fold ministries ,however the ecclesiastical and authoritative elements that many five fold ministries draw from the example of Paul are unwarranted given Paul’s own defenses and arguments he gives for his apostleship and authority. Many of the current apostolic models go further than Scripture and the Holy Spirit Himself spoke of.

The bishopric model that many support seems to have even more tenuous Biblical support and one must resort to the evolution and development of “tradition” to justify it. I’m not against such structures if they can be justified by full treatment in Scripture but that is not present. Again, spiritual authority is such a vital and crucial element of the Kingdom and to justify a model or system of rule, law or regulation in this regard is really really sensitive and requires great Biblical support which I find very lacking in the arguments I’ve read for it.

_________________
Robert

_________________
Travis