Your final question is superb and brings us all back to our relationship with the Head of every community that claims to belong to Christ.

Thank you for reminding us of this central truth

The scripture in Acts, used for this blog conversation, does seem to illustrate a structure with authority but one gets the feeling the Spirit is involved in this debate and God speaks in the final directive. Somehow, this group of early church leaders figured out how to let Jesus be the head of His body through them. They seemed to keep their role in perspective to His role.

Maybe the type of church government is not as important as: Does the government allow Jesus to sit at the head of the table?

1) Linus, not Peter, was the first Bishop of Rome,
2) all Bishops sit in the “Chair of Peter” because,
3) Bishops do not, individually, have Apostolic Succession; Churches have Apostolic Succession.

In addition, based on his description of the structure of Orthodox ecclesiology, it would seem that Rome had primacy (of honor) due to its being the capital of the Empire. His description would also fit with the idea that James had the final word at the Council of Jerusalem because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem, therefore, he presided over the council.

Not to extend any arguments, but when I realize I’ve said something wrong, if I can, I like to correct myself.

After the birth of the first children to Adam and Eve, natural elders (seniors) or patriarchs served both as physical superintendents, caregivers and priests. Please note, God did not have to “ordain” or even recognize Adam and Eve to be parents. They “were” parents in lieu of having birthed children. After Moses, elders/seniors (this included the Sanhedrin which in all likelihood was composed of 70 elders plus 1), together with the God ordained Levitical priesthood, functioned as both the physical and spiritual leaders of Israel. When society became corrupted, to supplement the patriarchal elder/senior led system, God would raise up prophets and judges, to correct and re-direct. This even included a few wise women. These leaders, though very influential, had no recognized, official, ecclesiastical nor political status and authority. Their authority lay in what they spoke, and their leading was based on mutual consent or dissent of those who followed or refused to follow them. One could accept what they taught as from God, or one could reject it. The consequences of rejection were not backed up by any human policing agency, authority or army. This form of leadership in it’s many variants, continued until Samuel, who was one of those title-less priest-shepherd-judges. When Samuel was old, because of the corruption of his sons, the elders demanded a king to rule over them “like the nations around them” (It seems that they were not willing to exercise their own God given responsibility). (Though the churches in general have also opted for kings to rule them, this type of government has never been promoted by God) From that point onward, against the wishes of God, the natural elders or seniors played a secondary role to the king, who ruled rather than led, who’s authority was tied in with the office and enforced by human agents, rather than by God, His Word and His people.

There is, I’m sure you realize, a problem with the claim that ‘the Spirit that dwells within Christians is sufficient to keep them from error’. Even in the NT churches it is quite clear that Christians fell into error and confusion all the time – hence Paul having to write long letters filled with arguments and admonitions.

The difficultly isn’t that we don’t read and rely on the bible. There are afterall several thousand different Protestant denominations who all claim sola scriptura, but who have different doctrines wrt baptism, communion, etc., because they interpret scripture differently. That was the problem in Paul’s time too: the various factions he contends against were all believers and all teaching according to their own interpretation/understanding of scripture. Without some sort of acknowledged authority for deciding between these competing claims, the early church would have degenerated into chaos very quickly (even as it was there were more than enough different sects with radically different beliefs by the 4th century).

Now consider that from the standpoint of sola scriptura, the Judiazers probably had a much better support for their position than Paul’s faction! So why did Paul’s position win the day and the Judaizers fade into obscurity? Ans: Because Paul got the support of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem who clearly formed the closest thing to an ecumencial council in the first century. And why did they decide in Paul’s favor? Ans: Partly because of the strength of Paul’s conviction and his case (but I’ve heard the modern equivalent of the Jewish side presented from scripture and it’s pretty compelling. He couldn’t have won on an argument solely from scripture against anyone with rabbinic training), but mostly because of Peter’s support and especially because of Peter’s vision. (Of course, there was the leading of the Spirit too but every church body making doctrinal decisions in every church since then has also claimed to be lead by the Spirit).

So where does this leave us? Some sort of body of apostles/bishops/elders was necessary for making decisions on questions of doctrine for a large, growing, and diverse collection of churches. This was initially located in Jerusalem and seems to have comprised James and the elders and Peter and the apostles. Following the destruction of Jerusalem and the death of James, nearly all sources and tradition point to Peter as the head of the new body. In some manner this body continued to survive the persecutions and when the church could re-emerge from the catacombs there were bishops, including a bishop of Rome, who were believed to be descended from the apostles in the sense of a direct chain of ordination.

Now whether the primacy granted Rome was due to Peter or due to its place as the capital of the Roman Empire is certainly up for debate. Also up for debate is whether this system was meant to be The System for all time or whether it was only necessary for the first centuries of the church. we have plenty of evidence from the OT afterall that God may change such arrangements – Israel went from being lead by a prophet and group of elders in the desert, to a series of judges called as needed, to kings, and then to something closer to a loose confederation of theocratically governed communities while in Exile (pattern followed at least twice). I think it entirely possible that such a thing may be at play in the history of Christianity too.

As to evidence for James’ place as Bishop of Jerusalem, I don’t have any evidence on hand right now beyond the fact that this is what the Church teaches about him. I don’t really see why this would be in any way controversial, however (beyond “it’s not in Scripture,” which I don’t really consider to be a valid argument, but that’s a discussion for another day).

Your point is well stated. Another verse that suggests individual responsibility in judging Truth is (1Co 14:29); Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other(s) (King James is singular while the Greek and most other translations are plural) judge.

The contemporary “elder rule” group, including among many Alexander Strauch make much of a required plurality of elders in any given church. I believe there is a better interpretation of that observation than they put forward.

The group of elders is a general body of people into which some mature, and from which some exit by death. In essence, because of the patriarchal functionings of that society (Jewish society was traditionally patriarchal), the elders would be the natural older people of the group who were, according to first century Jewish protocol, also considered to be the natural leaders and edifices of wisdom and respect in that society.” The consistent use of the term in the plural does not indicate a requirement, but rather a natural, normal condition. The church, as a city or country, is normally made up of a plurality of people. Among the indefinite number of people are indefinite numbers of men (plural), women (plural) and children (plural), as well as older/elder (plural) and younger (plural). The significance of the plural designation neither promotes nor denies a single pastor nor a multiple of them. The deciding factor is what exists naturally. It has nothing to do with requiring there to be more than one elder at any given time in any given church. As the term is relative to age (it designates the older of the group), it likewise is relative to number and therefore is listed in the plural.

The Spirit in the christian is able to keep them from error. Since you want to quote ’sola scriptura’ where is that principle found in the bible? Don’t tell me that Scripture is useful, etc. But the Bible doesn’t say it is the only source. Your own arguments seem to deny what you are trying to say. If the spirit in the Christian is able to keep them from error, why then are there over 3,000 Christian denominations. The proof is in the pudding. Either the spirit isn’t doing its work or the principle is invalid.

ray

By “…a brotherhood of equals”, I am not referring to a ruling council of elders, but to all believers in general.

Matt. 23, is not written to the disciples only, but to the multitudes at large
Matt. 23:1 (“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples…”).
Verses 8-11
(“…But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.”)
must therefore refer to relationships among people/disciples in general rather than only to the relationships within the council of twelve Apostles, or elders, or church councils.

A gentleman above tells me ‘the Orthodox church believes that Peter was in Rome’. That’s nice, but it’s an Appeal to Authority. What evidence do we have for it, beyond the fact that lots of people, including people in authority, believe it to be true?

Respectfully,

Brian P.