Diotrophes and the Doctrine of the Visible Church

The Westminster Standards distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. For example, we can read question and answer 61 in the Larger Catechism (see questions 61 through 65): "Are they saved who hear the gospel and live in the church? All that hear the gospel and live in the visible church are not saved, but they only who are true members of the church invisible." I agree with this statement as consistent with the Word of God. 

In contrast, we have the doctrine of the Anabaptists and some Baptists that the church has only one form, and consists only of the regenerate. They thus deny the existence of the visible church as described by the catechism. I consider this to be a false and dangerous doctrine. First, it is not a power given to men to judge the heart, such that we could infallible mark who is and who is not regenerate. And second, it creates chaos in the government of the church. And third, it is unbiblical. 

The Apostle John tells us of a man in the church, Diotrophes. We would call him an elder or overseer. "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So, if I come, I will being up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to, and puts them out of the church" (III John 1:9-10). 

So, we have John's warning of this man Diotrophes, a member of the church government in the congregation to which this epistle was written. John's warning is that Diotrophes is a false teacher who uses his power to put good men out of the church, an abuse of church discipline. 

The issue that this account presents for the doctrine we are considering is that the bad guy, Diotrophes, is a member of the church, while the good guys, whose names we are not given, are not members, due to their excommunication. If the denial of the visible and invisible church distinction is correct, then the Anabaptist must claim that Diotrophes is the true Christian while the friends of John are not. But that would be exactly opposite of John's warning to Gaius! 

On the other hand, the traditional Protestant doctrine, that of the Westminster Standards, easily resolves the situation: As a false professor, Diotrophes may be a member of the visible church, but he cannot be a member of the invisible church. And of the rest, regardless of the illegitimate action of Diotrophes, the friends of John are true believers, and, therefore, members of the invisible church, even though their membership in the visible church may have been canceled by the unlawful use of excommunication. 

Forgiving Sins and Priesthood Authority

I have been having discussions with Mormons recently on the place of "priests" in the Christian Church. They claim to have an exclusive "priesthood authority." According to the organization's website, that means "in mortality, priesthood is the authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God's children." What is that authority? From the organization's handbook: "The keys of the priesthood are the right to preside and direct the affairs of the Church within a jurisdiction. Jesus Christ holds all the keys of the priesthood pertaining to His Church. He has conferred upon each of His Apostles all the keys that pertain to the kingdom of God on earth. The senior living Apostle, the President of the Church, is the only person on earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys." 

When I talk to Mormons, they claim that Jesus Himself created this authority in the church, when Peter first professed His Messianic office in  Matthew 16. Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" (Matthew 16:17-19). Mormons (and Catholics) claim that Peter and his successors received here from Jesus his imprimatur allowing them to forgive sins, and, thus, mediating salvation to everyone else. 

To my mind, that claim is blasphemous, a denial of the sufficiency of Christ for the salvation of His people. As the Scriptures say, "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (I Timothy 2:5-6). That is what is said about Him. 

But is there anything which Jesus Himself said that directly refutes this claim of priesthood? 

Yes, there is. In the story of the paralytic, Jesus says to the frowning scribes, "Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins - (He then turned to the paralytic) - Rise, pick up your bed and go home" (Matthew 19:5-6). In the parallel passage in Mark, we get an additional piece of information. That is that the scribes accused Him of blasphemy, because, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Mark 2:7). And notice that Jesus does nothing to disabuse them of this opinion! They were correct that God alone can forgive sins. And in claiming that authority, Jesus blasphemed, in their view, because His claim was a claim to deity, equal to that of the Father! 

More to my point is that Jesus agreed that the authority belongs to God alone, and, therefore, cannot be held by any mere man, including Peter or anyone who claims to be his successor. Rather, as the representative of the only Head of the Church, Peter, the other apostles, and every true minister since their time has declared, not that they forgave sins, but rather that they brought the Gospel, the news that Jesus has purchased forgiveness of sins for everyone who believes (Acts 10:43). Jesus forgives, and the messenger announces. 

"With God are wisdom and might; He has counsel and understanding. If He tears down, none can rebuild; if He shuts a man in, none can open. If He withholds the waters, they dry up; if He sends them out, they overwhelm the land. With Him are strength and sound wisdom; the deceived and the deceiver are His. He leads counselors away stripped and overthrows the mighty. He deprives of speech those who are trusted and takes away the discernment of the elders" (Job 12:13-20). 

False Teachers and Their Pompous Claims of Authority

In our day, there are many "Christian" groups that claim grandiose titles for their organizational leaders. Mormons have their "Apostles and Prophets," various Pentecostal churches claim that their pastors are "Apostles," and, of course, the Pope has long claimed to occupy the "apostolic throne of Peter." I deny all such titles, and insist that all such claims mark false teachers. 

First, let me concede that the Bible does talk about Apostles and Prophets in the organization of the church: "He gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the Head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love" (Ephesians 4:11-16). The Church is the Body of "Christ." He alone is the Head of the body, and has established how the members shall be organized (see also 1:22, 5:23,and Colossians 1:18). Among other things, this means that men are not left to ourselves to design the government of Christ's Church. 

"Shepherds" here is the equivalent of "elders" in the rest of Scripture, and "teachers' are what we call pastors (see I Timothy 5:17). Paul describes the selection of elders, with deacons as their assistants (Acts 6:1-7), in several places, especially in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. And where does that same Apostle describe selecting new apostles or prophets? Nowhere. In fact, except for the selection of Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:12-26), a special circumstance, there is never a mention of selecting any more such men.

Does that not require us to accept that those were temporary offices, while the others were to be continuing offices in the Church? I think that the rationale is unavoidable, and demonstrates
that presbyterianism is the only scriptural system of congregational government, precluding congregational democracy, episcopalianism, or any claims to the offices of the Apostles and Prophets.

No Hierarchical Bishops in Scripture

In Acts 20, Luke gives us an account of a trip by Paul to Miletus. From there, he calls for the elders from the church in nearby Ephesus to come to meet with him: "Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him." In today's parlance, we would call it a strategy meeting.

Then, when he is speaking to them, we find this interesting comment: "Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers" (Acts 20:28).

What makes such a seemingly-mundane statement interesting? Notice the title "elders" in verse 17. That is a translation of the Greek word "presbuteros." From it, we get the English word "priest." However, its basic meaning is "an older person," from which it has been adapted to designate the church office of "elder."

However, in verse 28, the same men get addressed, not by their title, but by their job, "overseers." That English word is used to translate the Greek word "episkopos," from which we get the English word, "bishop." But it simply means "one who oversees," or a manager (see also I Peter 5:1-2).

The significance of that is that it eliminates any claim by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Anglican Church, that their office of monarchical bishop is derived from Scripture. The word is there, of course, but of a kind completely different from the extravagant powers and privileges associated with that title, especially those blasphemous claims to the pope to be the Universal Bishop, with authority over all Christians in the world.

Christ on the Throne of the Church

The Westminster Confession tells, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God" (XXV:6). This assertion is based on, for example, Ephesians 4:15-16: "We are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, [who] makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love." And in Colossians 1:18: "He is the head of the body, the church."

The reason the Confession teaches that His headship precludes the Pope (as well as all of the papist offices, such as priest and bishop) is based on Ephesians 4:11-13, in which Christ, as Head of the Church, "gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, [and] to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ..." As the Head of His Church, Christ gave her the officers and government that would best lead her to develop as He desired.

One thing that the Confession does not say, because it was taken as self-evident, is that the headship of Christ is an absolute monarchy. He decrees, and the church obeys. She is never left to decide her government, mission, or worship for herself. As Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell wrote, "Existing in Christ, by Christ, and for Christ, she has no other law but His will. She can only speak the words which He puts in her mouth. Founded upon divine revelation and not in human nature, she has a divine faith, but no human opinion, and the only argument by which she authenticates either her doctrines or her precepts is, 'Thus saith the Lord.' Her province is not to reason, but to testify" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church").

Biblical Church Government: Presbyterian

Before I start, this post makes number 500. I'll pretend that it is in honor of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation.

My church derives from Scottish Presbyterians who separated from the Church of Scotland, in part, over the issue of patronage. After the Act of Union of 1703, which abolished the Scottish Parliament, the English Parliament passed a law required the Scots to accept pastors appointed by the local landowners, whether those landowners were members of the church or not. The Church of Scotland submitted to that requirement, contrary to her own constitution. This resulted in three secessions: the Associate Presbytery (also nicknamed the Secession Church) in 1733, the Relief Church in 1761, and finally the Free Church of Scotland in 1843.

What was the principle which these secessionists upheld? That a congregation has a right under God to choose her own officers, including the pastor, contrary to the impositions of Parliament. This continues to be what distinguishes Presbyterians from the episcopal churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, which appoint their pastors, or move them, according to the whims of their bishops.

On what basis do we Presbyterians insist on this principle?

In Acts 6:1-6, we have the first description of the choice of church officers under the Apostles: "Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, 'It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.' And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them." The situation was a result of the growth of the church, both in numbers and in cultural diversity, resulting in interpersonal conflicts. The Apostles were unable both to attend to these conflicts and to evangelize. Therefore, they called for the church to choose (the Greek word means to choose by a show of hands) seven men, who would then be appointed to the office of deacon.

This pattern wasn't created ex nihilo by the Apostles. Rather, they followed biblical precedent. Moses had a similar difficulty as he led Israel in the Wilderness after the Exodus (Deuteronomy 1:9-18). Under God's instruction, Moses commanded the Israelites to "Choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads" (Deuteronomy 1:13). We see the very procedure adopted by the Apostles, as the congregation  elects men from within, who are then appointed to their authority by Moses.

The Apostles demonstrated their passing on of authority through the laying on of hands (Acts 13:3). With the passing of the Apostles, those who had inherited their authority continued the procedure (I Timothy 4:14, II Timothy 1:6). Thus, we have an orderly distribution of authority from Christ, the only head of the church, to the Apostles, and then to the elders and deacons of the church. There is provision neither for rule by individual men or for imposition of leaders, whether by a man or by the state, against the will of the church. This rules out popes, bishops, men of social standing, or of any authority supposedly over the church. This is the origin of the truth expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6: "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."

Saint Ignatius on Church Government

The Church of Rome, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Anglicans like to cite the Church Fathers in support of their government by monarchical bishops. While I have dealt with the biblical statements regarding bishops elsewhere (use the "church government" tag below), here I want to address one of those Fathers.

Saint Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch in the early Second Century, up until his martyrdom in Rome, during the reign of Trajan (between 98 and 117AD). Earlier in his life, he was a disciple of the Apostle John. I want to emphasize that his discipleship did not make him infallible. it does, however, give his opinions significance.

I want especially to focus on his Epistle to the Trallians 2:2 and 3:1: "It is essential, therefore, to act in no way without the bishop, just as you are doing. Rather submit even to the presbytery as to the apostles of Jesus Christ...  Everyone must show the deacons respect. They represent Jesus Christ, just as the bishop has the role of the Father, and the presbyters are like God's council and an apostolic band. You cannot have a church without these."

In both words, we see him referring to the "bishop" (Greek, "episkopos") . This is where the supporters of a monarchical episcopate like to focus. However, he didn't stop there. He also tells the Trallian Christians to submit to the presbytery, i. e., the council of elders (Greek, "presbuteros"). And then he includes the deacons (Greek, "diakonos"). Especially significant is his last sentence: "You cannot have a church without these."

We learn several things from this. First, when he says "bishop," he has no concept of a man in extravagant robes, ruling over all of the churches of a region. Rather, he is using it to refer to the person we now call a pastor. That's why the New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, translates episkopos as "chief elder," not as "bishop." Second, a bishop is not to rule in the church alone, but rather with a body of elders. And then the deacons are, not a class of lesser clergy, but rather a separate order of God-ordained officers. And third, and most-importantly, he says that there cannot be a church without all three orders of officers.

What does that say about the validity of the orders of clergy in the Catholic and other prelatic churches? The words of Ignatius, that they claim for their own, are actually against them, and in favor, instead, of the presbyterian form of church government.

Government Takeover of the Church?

I admit that I don't have much sympathy for the Jehovah's Witnesses, but the court case referenced here is a threat to orthodox churches, too.

In the Canadian province of Alberta, a provincial court has ruled that civil courts have the authority to intervene in ecclesiastical discipline cases. That completely undermines the self-government of the church, and revives the Erastianism of the European state-church system.

I hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6: "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ." There is no government Pope!

A Simple Question regarding the Primacy of Peter and of the Pope

The Church of Rome makes an interesting use of some of the remarks of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. In Matt. 16:18-19, He said, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This was in response to Peter's profession that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" in verse 16. In Greek, the name Peter means "a rock," so Rome has long held that Jesus was naming Peter the foundation of the church, and the Pope as Peter's successor.

I have addressed this question before, but I am going to take a different tack here.

One thing to note is that these particular words of Christ don't appear in the parallel passages in Mark 8:27-30 and Luke 9:18-22. Both of those gospel writers stopped after Peter's profession, leaving out the response of Jesus. If Jesus had been making such a fundamental declaration, wouldn't it have been included in the parallel accounts?

Moreover, in all three Synoptics, an account is given shortly after this one, in which the apostles were arguing over leadership. See Matthew 18:1-4, Mark 9:33-37, and Luke 9:46-48. Notice especially the words of Jesus recorded in Mark 9:35: "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."

These three passages tell us two important things regarding the matter at issue here between Rome and Protestants (and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as well). The first is that the other apostles didn't see the words of Jesus as appointing Peter to supremacy within their group. And second, they tell us that leadership in the church is not a matter of Jesus's call to supremacy, but rather His call to service. The palaces, gold trappings, and expensive art of the Vatican speak much of the former, but nothing of the latter.

There is, however, an account in Scripture regarding someone's claiming supremacy in the Church (III John 1:9-11): "I have written something to the church, but Diotrophes, who likes to place himself first, does not acknowledge our authority." The person who claims supremacy is an enemy of the church, not her head.

Bishops: Diotrophes in the Church

Before I start, I want to mention what a landmark this post is: Post number 300! When I first started this blog, I would never have imagined reaching 300 posts.

And now, to proceed: How many sermons have you ever heard from the Third Epistle of John? If your experience is like mine, not many, if any. In fact, out of my thirty-some years of listening to sermons, I can't recall even one. That's sad, because I think this epistle does have significance for the church today, even as small as it is.

I won't go into the question of authorship here; it isn't within the purview of this post. However, I take it as having been written by the Apostle John, as has been held throughout the history of the church.

In III John 1:9-11, the Apostle tells us, "I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to [welcome them] and puts them out of the church.

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God."

It is from this passage that the Covenanters got their nickname for the bishops of Charles I, "Diotrophes in the church." They, like John's nemesis here, sought to be first in the church, as do their kin in today's Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches.

Jesus also addressed the issue of the lordship of men in the Church of which He alone is Head (Mark 10:42-45): "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

That is why a Presbyterian church cannot exist without at least two elders. This is what is practiced by Paul in Acts 14:23, and enjoined by him in Titus 1:5 (on which I have commented here). Notice that it says "elders in  every church," plural, not "an elder in every church," or even "in every town," contrary to the diocesan system of the prelatic churches. Notice also the reference to "overseers" in Philippians 1:1. That word translates the Greek work "episkopos," the very word which has come into English as "bishop." The Church at Philippi had a multiplicity of bishops!

And here, I describe the words of the Apostle Peter, the supposed first pope, which forbid the very monarchical bishops which have claimed his name and title. And someone should inform the Vatican that the Apostle Peter that they claim as their source was the married Apostle Peter (Luke 4:38 and I Corinthians 9:5)!

The original Diotrophes thrust himself into a one-man rule over the congregation in III John (we don't know where this congregation was located). In the same way, the Pope and his bishops, along with the others in Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, have set themselves up as heads over the church, contrary to too many places in Scripture to be an accident. In his first epistle (I Peter 5:1-2), Peter commands the elders to "bishopize" (my own word, to translate "episkopountas") in the church. Thus, not only is it disingenuous for the Church of Rome to claim him as the origin of their church

government, but it is contrary to his very words! It is a self-justification for the papal tyranny over a billion souls, contrary to that attitude of service enjoined by Christ in the passage in Mark cited above.

Is a man saved by presbyterian church government? Of course not. Is he blocked from eternal life by the presence of bishops? Again, no man could say so. But, if Jesus has established a government in His Church, as I think I have proven, then it can only be rank rebellion to persist in ruling, or accepting rule, in that church, contrary to the express will of her Head. That is a serious sin, and cannot be anything but an obstacle to fellowship with that Head, who gave Himself to ransom her (Ephesians 5:25). 

I am concurring here with the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God..."

Bishops in the Church (Part 2): the Bible versus Catholic Tradition

I have addressed this topic more generally here, but I want to emphasize one passage in particular, that of Philippians 1:1. In it, Paul addresses his epistle "to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons."

"Overseers," here, is a translation of the Greek word, "episkopos," which has been brought into English as "bishop." As I have said before, "episkopos," in the New Testament, in used interchangeably with  "presbuteros," i. e., "elder," not for two separate castes of officers. Click on the "church government" tag below to see some of those posts. In summary, I would refer you especially to Titus 1:5-9, where episkopos" and "presbuteros" are used to name the same officers,

"

The difference in the epistle to the church at Philippi, is that the term is used in the plural, "bishops," contrary to its monarchical use by by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican Churches. Their view of a bishop as a higher-status governor over a region of churches cannot coexist with the plurality of such officers. However, the presbyterian form of church government not only permits a plurality of overseers, but actually requires it (see "elders in every town," Titus 1:5).

What is my point? Am I really concerned with how many overseers my church has? While I consider that important, my reader is correct to question my devotion of this effort to that minor issue.

Rather, the Church of Rome claims the "apostolic succession" of its bishops as proof that it has a legitimate claim to being the one true Church. My effort is devoted to demonstrating that that claim not only has no basis in Scripture, but is actually contrary to God's Word. Rome's form of church government not only lacks the imprimatur of Christ as Head of the Church (Col. 1:18, Eph. 1:23), but, more importantly, violates those portions of scripture which proscribe her constitutional form.

I Peter 5:2, More Testimony from Scripture Against Bishops in the Church

The first three verses of the fifth chapter of I Peter have some serious implications for church government.

"So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly, not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock." [Emphasis mine]

The words translated here as "elder" and "fellow elder" are forms of the Greek word presbuteros. The word translated "exercising oversight" is episkopountes, a form of episkopos, from which we get the English word "bishop." So, it can be taken to be a message from the Apostle Peter to elders to "bishopize," if I may be allowed to make up a new word. The Apostle goes even further in II Peter 1:1, where he addresses Christians as "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours..." While the Pope claims "the power of the keys" to include or exclude from the body of Christ whomever he chooses, the true apostle eschews any monarchical pretensions. If only the equality of all believers was the motto of the supposed heir of the throne of Peter, I would possibly give his faith a little benefit of doubt.

This seems to me to be a fatal blow to the episcopalian view of church government, as held by Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholics, all of whom hold to an office of bishop that rules over the church in a certain district.

This passage is especially destructive to the views of the Roman Catholic Church, which claims Peter himself as the beginning of their line of popes, the bishops of Rome. Rome claims that Paul was appointed by Christ in Matthew 16:13-20 to be the head of the Church, an office which he supposedly passed on to his heirs, the popes. However, in the passage here, we have Peter's own words stating that bishopizing is the work of elders. The New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, uses "elder" in  the passage, but then instructs the elders to "watch over" the church. The New American Bible, the main translation used by American Catholics, says "presbyters," refusing even to translate the term, with "overseeing." To my mind, that is a tacit admission that the American bishops are fully aware of the implications of this passage.

In addition to the positive assertions in Paul's letters, especially I Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9, we have here in I Peter the biblical basis for the system of church government commonly referred to as "presbyterian." It is neither "episcopalian" nor democratic. Church government is not an issue of choice. The Head of the Church has laid out how He intends to rule in His body, the Church. And the Pope of Rome is clearly the enemy of Christ's rule over that Church.

Bishops: the Hidden Admission of the Catholic Church

Titus 1:5-8 in the English Standard Version, says, "This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined." "Elder" is a translation of the Greek word presbuteros, the origin of the English word "presbyterian," meaning "government by elders." "Overseer" is a translation of the Greek word episkopos, the source of the English words "bishop" and "episcopal," meaning "government by bishops." The use of "elders" in the plural is the origin of the Presbyterian principle of government by a multiplicity of elders, as opposed to a single priest or bishop.

In the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the precept of "apostolic succession" holds that the bishop is the successor of the apostles, which is also the justification for papal supremacy and infallibility. Some Anglicans and Lutherans also hold to apostolic succession. This precept is, obviously, rejected by Protestants who hold to presbyterian or congregational principles of polity (i.e., "church government").

The New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, popular among English-speaking Catholics outside the United States, translates this passage with "elder" for "presbuteros," and "presiding elder" for "episkopos." No mention of a bishop, at all. In contrast, the New American Bible, the preferred translation among English-speaking American Catholics, uses "presbyter," a transliteration rather than a translation, and "bishop." However, in a footnote, the NAB says, "In Titus 1:5, 7  and Acts 20:17, 28, the terms episkopos and presbuteros ('bishop' and 'presbyter') refer to the same persons." The NAB also includes this imprimatur in its introductory material: "free of doctrinal or moral error," so the Catholic hierarchy cannot dispense with it as a mere mistake or unauthorized opinion.

I find this astounding! After centuries of claiming apostolic authority for its bishops, the Catholic Church has come out and confessed, whispered though it may be, that their claims are without biblical justification! Ah, if only they would follow through and depose all of their unjustified bishops, especially that blasphemer and Diotrophes in the Church (III John 1:9), the Bishop of Rome. Then I could accept that the Catholic Church may be a true Church of Christ, rather than that kingdom of Antichrist, which I currently profess it to be.

Bishops in the Church (Part 1): the Bible versus Catholic Tradition

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox churches, and the churches of the Anglican Communion, all practice the form of church government commonly called "episcopalian" or "prelacy." This is in contrast to the "presbyterian" and "congregationalist" systems. They claim that church history refers to government by bishops, and is found in the earliest church Fathers, including those of the immediate post-Apostolic period. And, as far as that goes, they are correct.

The reason that I say, "as far as that goes," is that it is a half-truth, leaving out a lot of relevant information, especially the simple fact that the word "bishop," a transliteration of the Greek word "episkopos," was used very differently from the way these churches use it.

There are two New Testament verses that refer to the "episkopoi" of particular congregations. Note that: "episkopoi" in the plural, not "episkopos" in the singular. In Philippians 1:1, Paul sends salutations to the Church at Philippi: "to all the saints in Christ Jesus, with the bishops and deacons" (KJV). The other is Acts 20:28 (cf  KJV margin). In both places, modern translations read "overseers," which is the literal translation of "episkopoi." The Acts passage, which begins at verse 17, is especially important, because it begins by referring to the "elders" of the Church at Ephesus, Greek "presbuteroi," and then changes to "episkopoi" for the same men.

The importance of these two verses is that they refer to multiple bishops in single congregations, utterly contrary to the single monarchical bishops of the episcopal churches.  In fact, in the immediate post-Apostolic period, the term came to refer, not to a regional monarchical official, but rather to the pastor of a city church. St. Jerome, that prominent church Father so often quoted by Catholic apologists, said, in his commentary on Titus, "A bishop is the same as a presbyter... [S]o let bishops know that they are greater than presbyters more by custom than in consequence of our Lord's appointment..." What he is referring to is Paul's instruction to Titus (in Titus 1:5) to appoint "elders," i.e., "presbuteroi," in every church. Note the plural, a plurality of elders, not a single monarchical figure. Then he continues in verse 7, "For an overseer (episkopos), as God's steward, must be above reproach." Paul uses both Greek terms to refer to the same men in the same office. That is why the New Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, translates "episkopos" as "presiding elder," not "bishop."

Thus, in two ways, both the New Testament and the first church Fathers contradict the use that episcopalians put upon them. In contrast, they support the presbyterian church of government, which not only permits, but rather requires, multiple elders to govern each local church.

For Part 2, click here. 

 

Why I Do Not Hold to "Signs and Wonders" Christianity

"How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will."
- Hebrews 2:3-4

This passage seems to me to undermine the entire premise of Pentecostal churches and the Charismatic movement. Signs, wonders, miracles, and [some] gifts of the Holy Spirit were given, not to create a superior class of Christians, but rather to confirm the Gospel message. That last part is why I am more accepting of such things in pioneering missionary works, especially in predominantly-Muslim areas. However, that proviso certainly does not apply to the United States!

Paul is usually quoted in favor of the continuing Pentecostal gifts. After all, he claimed to speak in tongues more than the rest of the church (I Corinthians 14:18). But why? Afterall, Paul himself said (verses 2-4) that tongues benefit the speaker alone, not the church. So why does he advocate them?

In a later passage (II Corinthians 12:12), Paul says, "The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works." These miraculous gifts were marks of his true apostleship, in contrast to the false apostles of verse 11. This same point is made in Acts 14:3, "So they remained for a long time, speaking boldly for the Lord, who bore witness to the word of His grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their [i.e., Paul and Barnabas, who is called an apostle here] hands." Again, the miraculous gifts are God's signs of the authenticity of the apostolic message. This is also why Jesus Himself rebuked those who seek signs (Matthew 12:39); they aren't for you!

That brings us back to the Hebrews passage above: The signs and wonders were the marks of the apostolic message, not of spiritual superiority. Thus, those churches which advocate them in the modern church are actually undermining the biblical message, applying what ended with the apostles to modern Christians, and further creating guilt and despondency in those church members who don't experience them. I am being generous in saying experiencing "them," since I actually believe that their modern expressions are counterfeits. I will note that a few Pentecostal groups actually acknowledge this difficulty, but then get around it by claiming that their clergy are modern apostles. This especially marks the New Apostolic Church, but is also found in many independent congregations. This is also why the Roman Catholic Church is so welcoming to charismatics: the Catholic hierarchy claims a continuing apostolic authority!

Christ's High-Priestly Prayer: Unity, Yes, but with Whom?

"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me. The glory that You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one even as We are one, I in them and You in Me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that You sent Me and loved them even as You loved Me."
- John 17:20-23

In this passage, part of what is commonly called Jesus's High-Priestly Prayer, the Redeemer asks His Father to bring unity among Christians. Thus, to desire unity among believers is a godly and biblical desire. But then practical questions begin: with whom am I to have unity? How am I to bring about biblical unity? The problem comes because this isn't the only passage relevant to the question of unity. 

In both Testaments, we can find repeated warnings that God expects His true people to be discerning regarding our allies. Leviticus 10:10, "You are to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean..." Leviticus 20:25-26, "You shall therefore separate the clean beast from the unclean, and the unclean bird from the clean. You shall not make yourselves detestable by beast or by bird or by anything with which the ground crawls, which I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be Mine." Ezekiel 44:23 (speaking of the clergy), "They shall teach My people the difference between the holy and the common, and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean." II Corinthians 6:17, "Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you..." James 4:4, "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." Revelation 18:4, "Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, 'Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues...'" This last verse is especially applicable to my purpose in writing this, because it explicitly commands separation from the false church. Here in my local area, the Rev. Robert Austell, of Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), a self-described "conservative evangelical," declared his candidacy for moderator of their general assembly.
.

In a presbyterian church, the moderator acts as chairman of the meeting, and the office is usually voted on at the beginning of the meeting, or annually, depending on the level of the court. In the election, Rev. Austell came in third of the four candidates. According to the article in our local newspaper, "while many congregations who share his theological views have left Presbyterian Church (USA), he and Good Shepherd are staying put. In a time of culture wars and deepening spiritual divides, Austell hopes to unite." 

The reporter is correct: many evangelical congregations have fled the PCUSA for more-conservative pastures, mainly in the PCA, but also the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, not to mention the new breakaway group, the Covenant Order. In 1982, the then-United Presbyterian Church (which merged the next year with the Southern Presbyterian Church to form the current PCUSA), ordained Mansfield Kaseman to the ministry, though he denied during his examination both the deity of Christ and the resurrection of the body. The inerrancy of the Scriptures is almost-universally denied by PCUSA officers. In 1923, J. Gresham Machen, then a minister in the northern Presbyterian Church, in his book Christianity and Liberalism, demonstrated that liberalism is not a version or interpretation of Christianity, nor even related to Christianity, but is rather a completely different type of religion from Christianity. Yet, this is what Austell wants to be united with. 

I want to ask him this question: how does the unity you seek line up with the Scriptures (see above)? To my mind, that is the only legitimate standard of judgment. And again to my mind, Austell's desire fails to match that standard.

Erastianism: The Trojan Horse of the Marriage Debate

"Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, 'You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day.' Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, 'We are witnesses.'"
- Ruth 4:9-11

The Zwinglian Theologian Thomas Erastus is known for the philosophy named for him, Erastianism, which is a theory of church government that holds that the church should be subservient to the state in a Christian nation. This was in opposition to the Catholic doctrine that the state should be subservient to the church. And both rejected the Augustinian "two-swords" doctrine, according to which the church and the state are mutually independent.

The predominant view of American evangelicals toward state recognition of same-sex marriages is that such recognition should be forbidden. In fact, I bring the matter up because my own state is holding a March referendum on adding such a prohibition to our state constitution. I am opposed to that amendment for two reasons, neither of which, I am sure, is coming into the mind of my reader right now.

First of all, I am appalled by the bait-and-switch tactics used by the proponents of this amendment. The debate has focused on whether same-sex couples should marry. That isn't the issue being voted on! The question is whether the state should recognize such marriages, which is a logically-distinct question. By distracting the debate with the false question, the lovers of the state have an opening for their agenda, which leads to my second and main objection.

There are neutral principles in law that apply to everyone, banning fraud and force. In marriage, that is the legitimate basis for banning, for example, the marriage of children. Those principles are neutral because they are general, applying to all classes of people. However, this amendment forbids a minister, as such, from performing his duty in a situation opposed by the state. That is not general; it is specifically a restriction that applies to the minister in his spiritual role.

That is why I raise the warning against Erastianism. Certainly I understand that the minister should be accountable, primarily to God and secondarily to his church. However, to make him accountable to the state is the essence of Erastianism, and I must oppose it as such.

Take a look at the text I use at the top of this post. It is a famous portion of the story of Ruth, in which Boaz takes her as his wife. Notice what he does: he informs the elders of his marriage contract with Ruth. He appoints the town elders as witnesses. At no point does he ask their permission to marry Ruth. In fact, nowhere in scripture is the government given any role in marriage, except - as noted above- to prevent force or fraud. And that is exactly where we have gone off track. The church has surrendered the family to the state. Therefore, I oppose this amendment as more of the same, and plead for American Christians to throw off the shackles of Erastianism, and return to the biblical pattern for the church and family.

I will close with this passage form the 18th-Century Scottish Minister William Wilson, one of the founders of the Associate Presbytery: "The Lord Jesus Christ alone, as Mediator, is Head, Lord, and Lawgiver unto His Church, and to Him alone it belongs to give laws, ordinances, and statutes unto the office-bearers of His house, in their several [respective] spiritual and ecclesiastical functions and administrations... and unto the Lord Jesus alone it appertains to give instructions unto His ministers, to regulate them in the exercise of their ministry..."

The Apostle Paul, Member of Presbytery

We tend to think of the Apostle Paul as a spiritual Lone Ranger, single-handedly establishing Christianity around the Mediterranean fringe. And it is true that he only occasionally speaks of companions, such as Timothy, Titus, John Mark, and Barnabas. He only gives snippets of the ecclesiastical organization which he established along with the congregations. But I do believe that he gave us such information.

In I Timothy 4:14, the ESV reads, "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you." That phrase "council of elders" is translated "presbytery" by the King James Version, the American Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible, and "eldership" in Young's Literal Translation. "Presbytery" is a transliteration of the Greek word, while "council of elders" and "eldership" are translations. Either way, we see the church leaders joining together to ordain Reverend Timothy. I suspect that this same ceremony is what Paul intends in I Timothy 6:12, "Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses." That is, Paul is urging Timothy to continue in the faith to which he testified in his examination by the presbytery.

Next look at II Timothy 1:6, "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands." Notice the switch in Paul's choice of words. In I Timothy, the ordination is by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. Then in II Timothy, it is by the laying on of Paul's hands. I think that the logical implication is that Paul participated in the ceremony of the presbytery.

I see in these verses the kernel of the early church government. It wasn't bishops; nor was it democratic congregationalism. It was presbyterian.

Luke 22:24-27, Does Christ Forbid Bishops, a Class of Clergy that Rules over the Rest?

"A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.'"

Referring to Titus 1:5-9, I have said before that the Bible knows no office of "bishop," except as a synonym for "elder." In particular, I believe that the office of monarchical bishop as it exists in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Episcopal Churches is opposed to Scripture, and, in fact, rebellion against the only Head of the Church. Such an office sets one clergyman in rule over his fellows. And, of course, the office of the Pope sets one man over even his fellow bishops.

I believe that the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXV:6) is correct in saying, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." The passage above is a key support for this doctrine. If Christ forbids an apostle from ruling over the others, requiring them instead mutually to serve one another, how can any lesser person claim such authority for himself? I won't even go into what these verses say about the supposed supremacy of Peter!

Christ, as Head of the Church, has given her a government of elders, whether primarily ruling or primarily teaching. And these elders hold no rule over any other elder (except in the sense of mutual subjection). The Pope and all the popelets in the world have set themselves up in rebellion against their Head. How can such rebels feed the flock from illegitimate places of power? Yet this is the fundamental calling of their office (I Peter 5:2)!

The Rock: Papal Claims of Supremacy Examined by Scripture

The Church of Rome claims that the Pope is the supreme head of the organized church on earth, meaning that anyone refusing that supremacy is by definition outside Christ. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, Oriental Independent Churches (such as the Coptic Church in Egypt), and Protestants have always refused and denied that supremacy.

Since the Bible alone, not the opinion of men, is the final standard in spiritual matters, that testimony alone must be the deciding issue.

The trail of logic in Roman theology holds that the Apostle Peter was given supremacy over the other apostles by Christ Himself in Matthew 16:17-19. After Christ's ascension, Peter moved to Rome and became bishop of the church there, where he revealed that his authority was to be passed by succession to all future bishops of Rome after him. So, the questions involved are, Did Peter receive supremacy over the other Apostles? Did he become a bishop, and, if so, was his diocese in Rome? And finally, did his supremacy succeed through the office of bishop in Rome, to all future popes?

On Peter's supposed supremacy, the essential portion is in verse 18, "I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church..." Jesus is making a play on words, for the name Peter, both in Greek and Aramaic, is the masculine form of the word for "rock." However, is Peter the rock He means? Jesus refers to Himself, and is referred to by the apostles , including Peter himself, as the chief cornerstone (Matthew 21:42, Ephesians 2:20, and I Peter 2:6-7). So, referring back to Himself as the rock would be consistent with Scriptural usage. Some interpret the rock as being Peter's confession of Christ. Either one meets the demands of parsimony far better than does the interpretation of Rome. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul even refers to the church's being built on the apostles as a group! Were the apostles, including Peter, simply confused? I guess the Church of Rome must know better than the apostles themselves did!

Further, what was the attitude of the other apostles to Peter? I believe that the testimony of Paul is especially telling. In Galatians 2, Paul is addressing the failure of Peter to oppose the intrusion of the Judaizers into that church. In verse 11, Paul tells us, "when Cephas ["Peter" in Aramaic] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned." Paul didn't submit to some supposed supremacy of Peter. Rather, he opposed him to his face, and explicitly states that Peter was in error! Earlier in this same passage, Paul also mentions another point that throws a major monkey-wrench into Papal claims. One time each in verses 8 and 9, Paul refers to himself as the apostle to the Gentiles, while the other apostles worked among the circumcision, i.e., the Jews. Logically speaking, that is not consistent with a supposed bishopric of Peter in Rome. While a strong tradition supports the belief that he was martyred there, it would not have been an obvious place for Jewish evangelism and discipleship.

The claim that Peter then left his authority to his Papal successors is made of whole cloth, supposedly on the tradition of apostolic succession. That is, Rome claims that the evidence for their succession to Peter is authoritative because the popes have always held it to be. Such circular reasoning and self-aggrandizement is self-evident.

Of course, I would add a more-fundamental objection: as I have said before, the Bible knows nothing of the monarchical bishop, as practiced in the Church of Rome, the Eastern Churches, and the branches of the Church of England. If the office of bishop is a fiction, then any supposed authority passed through it is a moot point! I believe that the Bible vigorously and unequivocally maintains the Protestant view of Papal Supremacy, which is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God."