Who Runs the Church?

JM said:

I'm listening to the the audiobook version of Who Runs the Church? and the Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian clearly demonstrate from scripture their views. Toons has a more difficult time and replies more on church history and tradition.

The thought struck me, the argument for the episcopal form of government has limited proofs from scripture but it doesn't matter to Anglicans/Orthodox/Roman Catholicism, because the early church didn't believe in sola scriptura.

Another thought, all of these men hold to sola scriptura (Toons maybe prima scriptura) and none of them agree. This is proof that holding to sola scriptura does not guarantee unity of doctrine.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's a bit of a loaded statement to say that the early church didn't believe in Sola Scriptura. This language did not come into prominence until the Protestant Reformation. But this is because it was necessary for the doctrine to be established against the excesses of Medieval Catholicism during the Protestant Reformation. Doctrine always develops this way. By way of analogy, just because the early church did not have the language of the Trinity that we have today, does not mean that the early church did not believe in the Trinity.

Sola Scriptura arose to combat the idea that church tradition is an equal authority to Scripture. This idea developed over time.

Sola Scriptura does not claim to guarantee unity of doctrine. There are doctrines in Scripture which are less clear than others and this will naturally lead to a diversity of opinion. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

But I would suggest that disagreements in the protestant world do not arise from Sola Scriptura. When we see protestants disagreeing about something, it's usually because (1) the issue is unclear in Scripture and disagreement is okay, or (2) there's actually been a failure to adhere to Sola Scriptura. Other teachings have crept in and the Bible has not been taken as the ultimate authority.

If the church more rigorously held to Sola Scriptura, I believe we would see much less disagreement.

JM said:

I'm listening to the the audiobook version of Who Runs the Church? and the Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian clearly demonstrate from scripture their views. Toons has a more difficult time and replies more on church history and tradition.

The thought struck me, the argument for the episcopal form of government has limited proofs from scripture but it doesn't matter to Anglicans/Orthodox/Roman Catholicism, because the early church didn't believe in sola scriptura.

Another thought, all of these men hold to sola scriptura (Toons maybe prima scriptura) and none of them agree. This is proof that holding to sola scriptura does not guarantee unity of doctrine.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Of course all would say that Christ runs the church but it doesn't quite work out that way when men are involved. Men love power over others and it doesn't matter which system we devise it backfires and ute men running the church.

First of all the church isn't a democracy as most Baptists claim. It is a monarchy where Christ is the King. He has placed men whom He has called and prepared to be His undersheperds to rule according to the leading of the Spirit and the Scriptures. They don't run the church they watch over her and rule over her as Christ's gift to her.

Their rule over her is one of love and care as a shepherd watches over his sheep. He guards and protects them from heresies and ravening wolves. He instructs them in the thins of God according to the Scriptures. He always and continually points them to Christ their Head.

He cares not for himself but for those whom the Lord has placed under his care.

He is a rare man who leads the Lord's sheep in this world as he ought.

JM said:

the episcopal form of government has limited proofs from scripture but it doesn't matter to Anglicans/Orthodox/Roman Catholicism, because the early church didn't believe in sola scriptura.

Click to expand...

To me, episcopal means hierarchy. And our Apostle Paul was over Timothy and Titus, directing them how to ordain bishops to "take care of the church of God" (please see 1 Timothy 3:1-10). I do understand, though, that bishop means overseer and an elder is shepherd of the flock, as Peter gives in 1 Peter 5. So, the two terms mean a pastor > who oversees and is an elder > a mature senior who is leading by example > 1 Peter 5:3.

So, Paul was more like a cardinal, Timothy like a bishop, and elders were the pastors.

Of course, ones do not agree with this.

Another offering I have > whether there is sola scriptura or not, still Isaiah 55:11 guarantees that God's word "shall accomplish what I please". This, to me, means God will have His word do all which pleases God Himself, and therefore it will do exactly all which God Himself means by His word, not limited to how arguing scholars are limited in understanding Him.

So, we can rest in this. We can trust You, O God, to do all You mean to bring up and mature men who are qualified leaders by example > 1 Timothy 3:1-10, 1 Peter 5:3. And Your word does not require that they have a public church hierarchy reputation < this is not one of the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-10.

Even if the Bible does mean there is hierarchy, this does not necessarily mean that a particular group's way of hierarchy is what God means.

JM said:

Still...you have to wonder why it was the chosen system of church government almost from the beginning until the Reformation.

Click to expand...

The episcopal system developed very early on. No doubt about that.

This is certainly an interesting fact, but it's not of primary importance. We should not accept an idea simply because it's old any more than we should accept an idea simply because it's new. The most important question is "What does God say?"

The episcopal system is not found in Scripture. This doesn't make it wrong as such. Churches could reasonably be governed according to this system without violating Scripture. But I think that there is a more purely biblical form of government known as Presbyterianism.