John Nelson Darby wrote:
"Those who cling so fondly to the practise of making and settling churches, quote the Epistles of Timothy and Titus, with most undoubting confidence, as serving for the guidance to the churches in all ages; whilst they were really never addressed to any church whatever. It may be observed that the quotations from God's word on matters most bearing on those who are engaged in settling churches, such as the choosing of elders, deacons, etc., must be derived from these epistles alone- and most remarkable it is, that those companions of the apostle who posessed his confidence, were left in the churches, or else sent to them when already existing, in order to select such elders, when the apostle had not done it- a clear proof that the apostle could not confer upon the churches the power of choosing their elders, even when churches he had formed were still in existence; and notwithstanding, we hear all this adduced as instructions for the churches in after times. Official nomination is an assumption of apostolic authority, and contrary to the order and principles on which it took place then. Nor has this left the saints without resource when God graciously works. Pastors, and doctors (teachers- D.F.), and evangelists are gifts which have their places in the unity of the body, and have their just exercise wherever God has graciously given them; and in 1 Corinthians 16:15, 16, I find the Holy Ghost directing submission to all who in devotedness of heart have given themselves to true labour in the Lord. So in 1 Thessalonians 5:12, and Hebrews 13:17, teach the same godly substance to those who labour, and thus take the lead in the work of the Lord."
Taken from On the Formation of Churches in Collected Writings, vol.1, p.148-149
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
When I was younger I thought that those who did not uphold the office of pastor as practiced now denied the function of pastor within the body, probably the result of a naive understanding of what the gift means and certainly the result of ignorance regarding such a position as this. It is the kind of thing I always took for granted. Churches have pastors. Pastors stand in front and preach. That's what going to church is like. Anything else was just weird to me.
I am sure a lot of people think like that.
Interesting, I have not heard this kind of teaching in a while. So you then deny that an assembly should have recognized elders? or am I misreading?
Yes, I am an hardcore Darbyite who does not recognise elders.
I see that you are hardcore. For what it is worth, I attend those assemblies follow in the tradition of Bethesda known as open, i.e,. the Lord's Table is open to all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ who have duly examined themselves per 1 Corinthians 11:27-31. As such I would agree with Newton and Mueller that the Word of God does authorize the naming of elders and deacons by non-apostles to lead the assembly of believers. I have always understood the lack of statement by the apostles to mean that the assemblies were to follow their example by choosing godly men to be elders per the guidelines of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 et.al
Any way interesting to read your blog. Even more interesting to find such a strict student of JND.
I do have great regard for JND and appreciate the time and effort that you put into this blog.
Thanks, Leo.
If the assembly has power to appoint elders, why did Paul give that task to Titus? The fact that he was given power to appoint elders in the churches indicates that nobody else in those churches had that authority.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
If I read this text correctly then it seems that Titus is being asked to complete unfinished tasks such as establishing elders. Chapter 4 and verse 12 indicates that Titus was only meant to be in Crete temporarily. Presumably Titus established elders and taught these new elders the criteria for choosing future elders. Artemas or Tychicus would continue the Cretans discipleship program. There is no indication that presence of elders was a one-time event. History clearly states that assemblies had subsequent elder leadership. For instance Eusubius mentions Cretan Bishops in the second century:
“Philip of Gortyna and Pinytus of Knossos. Eusebius describes Philip as the author of a "very elaborate treatise against Marcion" (HE 4.25) who presided over a church both noted for its virtue and, according to Dionysius, endangered by the errors of heretics (HE 4.23). Of Pinytus, Eusebius tells us that he was a "learned" and "orthodox" theologian who was urged by Dionysius to reconsider the wisdom of the "heavy and compulsory burden" of chastity he had imposed on his congregation (HE 4.23). Eusebius' reference (HE 4.23) to the "other dioceses" in Crete to which Dionysius wrote indicates that Christianity had spread well beyond Gortyna and Knossos by the end of the second century.” http://ecole.evansville.edu/articles/crete.html
It is common for elders from established works to set up new elders in Church Plants with the expectation that the process continues as the assembly grows or hives off or elders leave for various reasons. This is how the assemblies that I have attended function.
Are you familiar with Alexander Strauch's book Biblical Eldership?
I have not read the book you mention.
If you have read any of the early church fathers, you will be aware of the apostate state of the postapostolic church, so any argument from them is unsatisfactory.
That there was any power in the assembly besides Titus to appoint elders is not made clear.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Based upon my understanding of church history, I suppose that I am not clear on your meaning
you will be aware of the apostate state of the post-apostolic church, so any argument from them is unsatisfactory -
I agree that error existed at that time as now and that apostasy occurred as it does now. Yet I would counter that the Holy Spirit was still functioning within the body of believers that existed at that time. So to say the whole post apostolic church was apostate would seem to impugn the work of the Holy Spirit. I would say for instance that the work of Philip of Gortyna was led of the Spirit as it was used to combat the heresy of Marcion. Certainly the stand of the church against Arius was a work of the Spirit. Athanasius’ famous defense of the Trinity was certainly a high point. The Bible Canon was confirmed at that time. This list can go on and on. To me it is necessary to assume some continuity between the apostles and the present time in order to defend the Biblical Traditions that we uphold to be true. Certainly, E.W. Broadbent in his book The Pilgrim Church does offer such a defense.
All this to say that many servants of God had/have some error in their teaching. For instance, I would hold that Darby was in error for holding to infant baptism yet I do not reject the body of his work. I believe that we need to discern between the primary, secondary and tertiary issues, so is my perspective in handling church history.
What do you think?
Blessings,
Leo
Certainly, God saved the early church from Christological heresy and preserved the canon.
However, all of the early church fathers beleived a false gospel of works, so they were probably lost men. It is quite clear from reading the works of the time that they were in utter darkness about some of the basics of New Testament doctrine.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Post a Comment