Was there a governing body in the first century?

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

When it comes to the 'body of Christ', God stated, that within that body, he appointed some as Apostles, then prophets and then teachers. (Eph 4:11 and context) At the time this was written, the Apostles were still alive, and there were living inspired prophets as well and evangeliers and teachers.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers,12with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ,13until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full‐grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ;

What did Paul say was the responsibility of these “gifts in men”? He clearly stated that it was to readjust the holy ones, to keep them united, until they all attained to the oneness of the faith, into the full grown man. The point being that these gifts in men had the authority and the responsibility to do these things in the first century.

Hebrews 13:17 told the first century Christians to be obedient to those who were taking the lead among them. Hebrews tells us that those ones 'will render an account for our souls'. Who would that have been in the 1st century? Would it not be those gifts in men, the Apostles, who were clealy acting as a governing element among the congregations of Christianity? Would it also not be true that these "gifts in men" would strive to be of the 'same mind and the same line of thought with no divisions’ according 1 Cor. 1:10 and context?

Paul said that there were those who gave ORDERS in connection with 'how to walk and be pleasing to God';

1 Thessalonians 4:1,2-

Finally, brothers, we request ​YOU​ and exhort ​YOU​ by the Lord Jesus, just as ​YOU​ received [the instruction] from us on how ​YOU​ ought to walk and please God, just as ​YOU​ are in fact walking, that ​YOU​ would keep on doing it more fully.2For ​YOU​ know the orders we gave ​YOU​ through the Lord Jesus.

The first century Christians were said to adhere to the 'teachings of the APOSTLES'. (Acts 2:42)

Acts 2:42

And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to sharing [with one another], to taking of meals and to prayers.

Was this different then the teachings of the SCRIPTURES? No, because the Apostles adhered TO the scriptures. It is abundantly clear that the Apostles had a special authority in the 1st century congregation.

In reality, the idea of a governing element, made up of men, is everywhere apparent in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Consider the following points and questions:

Romans 16:17
17 Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that YOU have learned, and avoid them.

Divisions in 'what?
What teachings are they in reference to? Would it not be the teachings of the Apostles? (Acts 2:42)

2 Thessalonians 3:6
6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us.

Who is the WE giving the orders if there is no such thing as a Christian governing element?
What is it they received from the US that they needed to adhere to?

2 Thessalonians 3:13-15
13 For YOUR part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

Where did this letter come from that they had to be obedient to?
Why was it spoken of as OUR WORD, and not God's word? Who was the OUR?
Where was this obvious authority coming from?

Titus 3:10-11
10 As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; 11 knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.

How would you know if someone was promoting a sect if there was no governing element in regard to doctrine?
Who determined what the 'promotion of a sect' entailed?

Titus 2:15
15 Keep on speaking these things and exhorting and reproving with full authority to command. Let no man ever despise you.

Who had “full authority to command” and what did that mean for those under their authority?


Notice 1 Thessalonians 4:1,2-

Finally, brothers, we request ​YOU​ and exhort ​YOU​ by the Lord Jesus, just as ​YOU​ received [the instruction] from us on how ​YOU​ ought to walk and please God, just as ​YOU​ are in fact walking, that ​YOU​ would keep on doing it more fully.2For ​YOU​ know the orders we gave ​YOU​ through the Lord Jesus.

Throughout his letters to the different congregations we here Paul speaking of the 'orders' or 'instructions' that the congregations had been given by the WE. Who was the WE?
Did you notice Paul didn't say to them "God instructed you", but he said "WE" instructed you? Why did he not say 'God instructed them'?
Why does it say that THEY INSTRUCTED them on HOW TO WALK AND BE PLEASING TO GOD?

It should be readily apparent that the Apostles were speaking with authority to the congregations scattered about.

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders.

Correction. Appointment. Again, clealry indicative of an element of authority.

And again, Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

If there was no governing element within the 1st century congregation, who were the leaders that they were to submit to and obey?
How were these ones responsible for the souls of the congregation to the extent that they would have to make an accounting for them?

As well, Acts 16:4 tells us that Paul and others in a 'town to town' fashion, delivered the DECREES reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to OBEY."

Why were they called DECREES?

Why were the other congregations expected to OBEY those DECREES? Why did they have to obey the decisions reached by the Apostles and older men?

Is it not clear that the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem represented an authority in the 1st century church?

This idea of a governing element within Christianity is embedded within many passages of the Bible.

Consider:
Paul said at 1Cor. 13:11: "Finally, brothers, continue to rejoice, to be readjusted, to be comforted, to think in agreement, to live peacably, and the God of love and of peace will be with you."

"The apostles and older men... to those brothers in Antioch... Since we have heard that some from among us have caused you trouble with speeches, trying to subvert your souls, although we did not give them ANY INSTRUCTIONS" - Acts 15:23-24

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I GAVE YOU ORDERS.

2 Thes. 2:1,2 However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of ​YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from ​YOUR​ reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.

Many more examples can be offered if necessary. But a careful reading of the Christian Greek Scriptures will reveal in undeniable fashion that the first century congregation continuously functioned with the backdrop of a governing element within it, primarily recognized through the Apostles. After the Apostles would pass from the earthly scene, those "gifts in men" and the function they performed would be bestowed upon evangelizers and teachers. These ones would continue in that readjustment process until the entire Christian congregation would come to the oneness of faith, which I think we all know, has not yet been achieved. So it is imperative that Christians identify who represents those "gifts in men" today.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Ivanmonroy]

:

In Acts 15 the letter sent by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem says that those with the false teaching "went out from among US." Does this mean these false teachers were members of the GB or simply the Jerusalem congregation, and if the latter, wouldn't that imply the letter came from them as representatives of that particular congregation rather than the earth-wide church?

[EDITORIAL NOTE: There was a typo in my question which changed the meaning or intent of the question.]

[Rotherham]

POST DELETED-REPLACED BELOW

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

It is readily apparent that Paul gave commands, orders, instructions, etc to many different individuals and congregations. (References available if necessary) If congregations were autonomous, and Paul was evidently a member of the congregation in Antioch, where did he and others (US, WE) get the authority to tell different congregations and individuals not in his congregation, what to do?

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Ivanmonroy]

You argued that Paul did not "exercise any authority whatsoever" until he met with the Apostles in Jerusalem. However, before this meeting we see in Acts 14 that Paul was appointing elders. So upon what basis do you make this claim?

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

If each congregation had the authority to appoint older men without supervision, why was Titus commanded to go from CITY to CITY to appoint older men and why does it say that Paul and Barnabas are the ones who appointed older men in many cities?

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Ivanmonroy]

You have made it a point to emphasize the laying on of hands and the right hand of sharing. You asserted that Barnabas, as a representative of the Governing Body in Jerusalem, had been sent to Paul to lay hands upon him in order for him to exercise ecclesiastical authority. Question: Where is the biblical mandate for laying on of hands in the NT and how is it that you say Barnabas laid hands upon Paul when it was both of them which had hands laid upon them, according to Acts 13:1-3?

[Rotherham]

Hello Ivan,
Looks like about the 15th will be close to when things let up a bit. Sorry for the delay.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

It seems that some of the problems that Ivan sees with my response is hardly related to the issues at hand. Rather than dealing with the information, it appears he wants to attack the style of delivery.

As dialogue progresses one often sees where adjustments in their argumentation are necessary in order to be more accurate or consistent. Yes, I changed the manner in which I understood the progression of how hands were laid upon Paul and Barnabas. That is of little consequence to the fact that hands were indeed laid upon them after the holy spirit singled them out for an additional missionary assignment.

Rather than address the fact that the laying on of hands is a fundamental Christian teaching according to Hebrews 6:1,2, Ivan simply targets the fact that I changed my understanding of the progression of how hands were laid upon Paul and Barnabas at Antioch. He asks how do we know that Barnabas had hands laid upon him by the Apostles when he was assigned to go to Antioch? It simply stands to reason since we know that as a fundamental teaching of Christianity, we see it happen in numerous places when one received a special ministerial assignment. The argument that it is not specifically stated is weak when we know that it did happen in regard to ministerial assignments. The real question would be, what would make one think that the Apostles would not perform this fundamental action upon Barnabas when assigned to go to Antioch. The objection is clearly just by design with an agenda attached to it.

It should be scripturally clear that Barnabas did not receive the right hand of sharing as to the governing body until the Jerusalem council took place. This assignment that was bestowed upon him at Antioch would not be the "right hand of sharing" that was given to him and Paul at the timing of the Jerusalem Council, but it would have been an assignment of greater proportion and authority then what either had possessed before they received it. When they later received the right hand of sharing with the governing body, the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem, this also no doubt included the laying on of hands as a greater authority and responsibility had been laid upon them. To think otherwise is to discount the very fundamental teaching involving the laying on of hands and what it was for.

A simple reading of the scriptures and an understanding of the timeline of events reveals that Paul exercised greater authority over the congregations after his being given the right hand of sharing by the Apostles and older men at Jerusalem. Yes, he had SOME authority before this event. He was able to appoint older men in the congregations round about. But, after this right hand of sharing was extended, he had authority to instruct the congregations in may areas, and to give authority to others to appoint older men in other congregations, something that was apparently absent before this sharing was extended, or at least could be successfully argued. It is entirely harmonious with the scriptures to see this as a logical consequence of this right hand of sharing.

There is no such thing as Apostolic succession. You've completely misunderstood something along the way. However, Eph. 4 :11-17 clearly shows that AFTER the Apostles would pass away, there would be other gifts in men that would carry on the same kind of unifying activity that the Apostles were practicing. No, they weren't successors to the Apostles. They were clearly identified as teachers, prophets and evangelizers that would carry on the Apostles efforts of maintaining unity within Christianity. As time would go on these "gifts" would certainly not be inspired in their writings, nor possess the gifts of the spirit that was greatly advantageous to the Apostles. So there is no such thing as Apostolic succession, but there is clearly a succession of those gifts in men who are to continue to protect the flock from being carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching which would destroy the unity of the Christian congregation. Since God clearly condemns sectarianism and division within his congregation, one should be able to see the unmistakable need for those gifts in men and the maintenance of Christian unity.

Ivan often uses as his defense the argument from silence which can be regarded as a logical fallacy. He seems to appeal to the idea that if its not stated a certain way, then it didn't happen. Most realize that such an approach is a fallacy. Because something is not stated does not mean that it did not happen. For instance, it stands to reason that the fundamental teaching of the laying on of hands as a gesture indicating a greater ministerial assignment, happened many times without it being spelled out in detail every time it happened.

As far as the appointment of older men being supervised by the governing body on Jerusalem, there may be no way to definitely prove that's what they were doing, but surely there is no way to prove otherwise. If it is within the realm of possibility, then a religious group can not be faulted or criticized for seeing it what way and practicing in harmony with what they perceive. It is abundantly clear that Paul is the one who appointed both Titus and Timothy to the assignment of appointing older men, and since it is entirely feasible by the time he did so, he was a representative of the governing body, then there is a direct connection of those appointments with the governing body. Paul said to do this according to "his instructions". Did they include reporting to the governing body, or at least to him, those whom were being appointed? How can one prove that it didn't? Today, it would simply be a Biblically allowable organizational practice to perform these appointments in this manner. To say that scriptural protocol is being violated is to invent arguments that do not exist within the pages of the Bible. There is simply not enough evidence to prove the issue either way.

But the facts stand that older men were appointed by individuals OUTSIDE the local congregation, who had the authority to do so. They were not appointed autonomously by the individual congregations as well was claimed. Whether these appointments were filtered through the central governing element is debatable, but certainly not deniable or inappropriate from a Biblical standpoint. Any religion that would notify a central governing element of these appointments of older men are certainly well within their scriptural rights to do so.

As it stands , it is agreed that the Apostles served as a central body of authority when it came to the teachings and Ephesians 4:11-17 teaches us directly that the process of unification and correction when necessary would continue until full knowledge will abound. To deny the message of Ephesians would be extremely odd to say the least. And it is agreed that at least some outside authority was necessary in order to appoint older men within the congregations. I am beginning to wonder what exactly are we continuing to debate? It sounds like it comes down to things of preference in regards to protocol, which in the end becomes a matter of opinion and entirely allowable within the scope of organizational procedures that are covered by the Bible.

I will follow soon with my next question to Ivan.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

[Ivanmonroy]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

"At this point, as of the above date, March-2013, Ivan Monroy has stopped responding."

Regards,
Rotherham