How Should We Then Live?

[Hugh McBryde]

As I either missed the statements or such were lacking, how many people or families meet in your local assembly/church, Hugh?"

Only two, mine and one other.

I was under the impression it was just you and while I do not believe churches have to be large, the role of elder is one of example and leadership."

"Under the impression" seems to be synonymous with "assume" in this case, and you know what they say about "assume."

As far as "sharing," I already have. Please read above and "below the fold" (I'm dating myself). I sometimes think you see me as young. If so, please know I am grand-dad material. If you saw me as young, I'll take it as a remark on my good looks and then wonder openly why I'm not subject to thousands of mash letters from clambering young plural wife wannabees.

When talking to Keith "Allen" once on this board, I remarked "I'm talking to a wall." I'm getting that feeling again. With over 400 posts, most of them being on the topic we are now discussing, I despair when a leader/moderator on the board asks such questions. Have I truly been that ineffective and dismissed? I also think at the same time that it would be rash for me to ask similar questions of another but they have no hesitation asking such things of me. After all, I became a member by invitation of this board's creators (at least ONE of them) within it's first month of existence, even before you joined. You have "out posted" me, but I've taken long leaves of absence from the forum, the last one seeing no posts at all in 2012.

The point is that I have a presence here. I was asked to be here for a reason. I contribute, and I have taken definite reasoned positions based on scripture.

actually, the words into unity were the key point of my statement. we will not wrangle into unity here, nor anywhere else."

I have never proposed such a thing. Again, you choose the word "wrangle" which in a scriptural context calls up the passage on "word wrangling" which is then quickly misapplied in most cases to say any discussion/argument is "wrangling" and the wranglers are the problem, so get away from them. In this way the luxury of error is maintained by those in error.

if you and i each focus on Yeshua, at some point our views will converge."

True, but you don't know anything about Jesus (Yeshua) unless you pick up the WORD which he elevates to the same status (or above) as his own name.

if one or both of us focus on what we believe and can prove in Scripture, our view points will never converge."

Speak for yourself, and you speak as one who doesn't know it well.

 

[steve]

all-righty then.

God bless you,
steve

 

[ChrisM]

Hugh, I have a wife and 5 children, a job, and currently writing from work as the electricity is out for a few days due to a main power line having a few trees for decoration. Thus, I don't have time to read every post you ever wrote to find out what you think on various topics. I asked you questions about the discussion you claim to wish to have, in return you talk to me like I am a red- headed stepchild. If you don't want to actually have a conversation about those things I asked, then stop complaining that nobody will talk to you in depth.

Steve, it seems you are yet again wiser than I (or at least faster) as it seems this conversation is going nowhere but in the direction of disunity, complaining, and aggravation.

Everyone else, if you wish to have a doctrinal, Biblical discussion, please feel free to start a thread and even invite folks via PM to join the discussion if you think specific folks would be interested in study. If you have a complaint, be willing to listen and answer questions, engage in the process of making things better.

We as a staff have a lot on our plates (as do all the members of the forum)and we serve at Biblical Families as volunteers because we love God's people and want to encourage folks regarding Biblical marriage, child rearing, discipleship, and other such things related to the family. We hope to all learn and grow together in the knowledge and wisdom of the Lord as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.

In parting, let me quote those wise words shared by steve earlier in this seemingly fruitless discussion:
hugh,
you are not the first, nor will you be the last, who looks upon this board as a target rich environment from which to start a church.
i am sure that i speak for many of the others in saying that you are welcome to start a church and extend an invitation to one and all. just do not try to create this board in your own image, it was created some time ago in a different image and is doing what it was created to do. if its creator feels to take it further it will happen without outside pressure.

also, insulting us and our beliefs, or lack thereof, probably will not draw you a congregation.

best wishes,
steve

 

[eternitee]

Sorry to hear about the power Mark. You, Sara, and the children are in our family prayers constantly - we will add the family member you are staying with.

I as an individual appreciate all the hard work you and Sara put into Biblical Families. Our lives have definitely been enriched from meeting you, getting to know and love all of you and continuing to interact and learn from you. Thank you for all that you do.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Mark, if you don't have the time at the moment, I fully understand, I can go a month without "the time" to address anything substantive. I find it odd that you comment though, when you don't have the time. It seems you wish me to go back to something that specifically addressed questions you asked and serve it up as a personally addressed message. You claim you don't have the time, well, neither do I have the time to tailor everything I have already said to be an attractive dish served up to each individual. If you don't want to read it now, that's OK. If you don't want to read it ever, that too is OK, but it's best not to be even in the slightest bit assumptive regarding me and my views, or take a tone of condescension. You don't know what "I'm about" and it doesn't look like you wish to.

With regard to "steve" and "wisdom." Wise words generally address the topic at hand. Steve didn't. He assumes an agenda I don't have, and as such he assumes goals I don't have. It's disheartening to address directly his statement and point that out, and have someone hand it back to me as "wise." Steve in my experience is one of those folks that's not talking to you, when he's appearing to talk to you. At least that's how I see it in my case. He's talking to someone else that's in the audience. Apparently, that was you.

If I've been here longer than you. If I've invested the time to express what it is that I believe and if you don't take at least some time to get a rough idea of my supposed issues and agendas, your advice is essentially shooting in the dark. Please understand that I mean no ill will when I say you've missed the mark, Mark, but you've missed it.

 

[FollowingHim]

Hugh, this is a discussion forum, not a novel. You don't start at the beginning and read through to the present, you start at the present and read back to the past, usually when someone points you to something that is interesting.

How many of my early posts have you read? Have you studied everything I have written, and everything Mark has written, to determine our viewpoints on every issue?

As far as I can see, you left this forum before either I or Mark joined. I will no doubt have read some of your old posts, but haven't remembered exactly who said everything so I can use that reading to work out exactly what your viewpoints are. I read old posts when I joined to learn about plural marriage, not to analyse the personalities of individuals who I had never met and were not involved in the forum any more. I read the content, not the authors. I expect Mark is in a similar position. We're meeting you for the first time over the past few weeks.

Hello!

We can find the time to talk to people here, but not to read every conversation they have ever had with others.

If you have any particular things that you have said in the past that you would like to show us, feel free to post links to specific threads.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

This thread is now successfully hijacked into a thread about personalities. When you can't deal with the message, shoot the messenger.

 

[cnystrom]

you are not the first, nor will you be the last, who looks upon this board as a target rich environment from which to start a church. i am sure that i speak for many of the others in saying that you are welcome to start a church and extend an invitation to one and all.

It is an interesting idea. Many have thought of the idea of creating a more formal polygamy friendly fellowship (including me). I wonder if sometimes it is an illusion? The essential problem I see is that polygamy itself is not enough of an idea to rally around. People can be members of a forum such as this and even though they are Christian can still have very different ideas about what the Bible teaches. One simply has to look back at the history of the Church to see all of the fighting over doctrine, etc. My years being around the Christian community has not led me to think we can all just get along.

My own idea, and I may do this, is to get some land and start an polygamy friendly intentional community. But then you have to be very careful who you invite to come live with you!

 

[ChrisM]

My own idea, and I may do this, is to get some land and start an polygamy friendly intentional community. But then you have to be very careful who you invite to come live with you!

This idea bounces around for a lot of us here, also. As you pointed out, the reasons folks come to the issue of plural marriage, the outworking of the doctrine in real life, and a hundred other more important things vary greatly in our group. The only one I know here with similar beliefs on even the basic structure of the local church is FollowingHim, Samuel that is. While we do desire to get along, true unity will only come with Biblical doctrine sought out and lived out (even when such requires drastic changes in our lives). We all agree on salvation and thereby have fellowship to some extent, but truly if a local church is to be formed, it must be done using the pattern laid out for us in God's Word. We have a few different ideas of how that works itself out in structure, function, and such, even within our leadership. I know some of that needs to be met with humility and grace where we see things differently, but as we see the struggling church in Corinth, Paul's challenge in the first chapter, verse 10 is " I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no division among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment." We do desire unity, yet we disagree on some very practical things. Will we form a church, let God appoint elders which we will recognize, and then submit to them even if we don't agree with them, as they are accountable to God? Would we disagree and tolerate men or truly submit? Is there a time for both the former and the latter? This is certainly a difficulty that we won't fix simply by buying tracts of land and starting polygamous communities, but for many it may be exactly what God is leading them to do.

See, Hugh, I can get back on topic....

 

[Hugh McBryde]

We have started a church, and I'm with Chris on the "Intentional Community" idea. You certainty are all invited. I had suggested that you try to find something more local as a first option, whether it be plural friendly or not.

This does make a first order of business then, discussing what constitutes a church. To some degree that's been done out in the open but more in the invitation only debate forum, which not many can see and hasn't been posted to since more than a year ago.

http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=2545 "The tradition of Apostolic Authority"

http://biblicalfamilies.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=2549 "Submitting to Human Leadership & Church"

The latter was in the debate forum, and I'll reprint the April 6th, 2011 OP here for all to see:

From Matthew 3:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Also from Luke, Chapter 1:

According to the custom of the priest's office, (Zacharias') lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the LORD. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the LORD, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings."

John is the son of a Priest. So what is John?

Jesus said: "It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" when he insisted to John, that John Baptize HIM. We also know from the recitation of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) that the people feared (as did Zacharias) the presence of the LORD or any signifying the presence of the LORD, such as the angel Gabriel. The people asked at the time of the giving of the Law of God through Moses his servant, that Moses speak to God, for they feared death at the mere sound of his voice. God established Moses' tribe in Israel (the Levites) as holy to him for and as a place from which to draw priests to speak to God in the place of his people.

Jesus does not break that commandment of God.

To say that I am bestowing on the leaders of congregations (it's elders, it's teachers and so on) priestly office, is an equivocation. After Sinai, God does not simply "poof" congregations into being. You can say YOU'VE seen that, but then you elevate YOUR EXPERIENCE over that of the Word of God which he places higher than his name. Ever since the appointment of the Levitical priesthood and the establishment of Kings, God has worked through even the broken and lost leaders of those institutions to work his purposes. Two examples, the first from John 11:

One of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death."

Gamaliel says in Acts 5:

Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God."

No one, including Paul who was his student, claims Gamaliel's salvation, yet does he not speak the truth?

What we gather from these passages are:

God works through the human authority structures he establishes, once he does so, he continues to do so.

John the Baptist was of Priestly family, and Jesus INSISTED that John baptize HIM.

Even the sinful lost and broken representatives in God's established offices speak for him in certain ways (the prophesy of Caiaphas).

As I have said before, the believers met in the temple, worshiped there, were marginalized to the area of Solomon's Portico (an entryway) and eventually were thrown out of Jerusalem for the most part.

Jesus was rejected and condemned by the two established kinds of authority that God put into human hands in addition to his being ordained by them. He was condemned by the Jewish priestly leadership, he was turned over to them by the civil authority (Rome).

Every church in the New Testament was planted and/or endorsed by human leadership in Jerusalem.

Even Paul, called directly by Jesus, goes to Jerusalem to receive the sending and endorsement of John and Peter.

Yet most of you say that we can just receive a calling and be sent directly by God to establish a church. You say this because most if not all of you do this if you don't say it.

What prophesy led you to establish a church having less authority to do so than Christ had when beginning his ministry? What makes you think that you can establish a church in ways that none of the churches of the New Testament were established? Is it because you say no one has come and we need to? Saul sacrificed as was not his office to do. Remember Saul the King?

Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

Uzziah the King who was generally counted as righteous, did similar things as well, and was banned from God's house since he was made a leper and remained so until his death.

Rebellion is not a light thing. God wants us to be in a place of submission to authority. It is clear that the authorities God places over us, are often not so righteous. That does not vacate our charge to follow their instruction when possible. Matthew 23:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

We seem to want to only wield authority over women, and being King, Priest and Prophet.

Rebellion is an epithet in the mouth of our LORD. Why does it seem to me that it is a virtue in our eyes?

I have offered myself for the establishment of a legitimate church on this earth. I am certainly not the only one who qualifies, but I am the only one that I know of, that qualifies who is like minded on marriage with the rest of you.

Find someone else and I'll put aside my effort immediately and join their church.

Again I repeat my "lineage" for you. The Roman Catholic Church is a descendant of the Church of Rome authorized by Paul and Jerusalem. There are other such descendants. Rome is not the only such legitimate Church. It is however, my ancestor in this matter.

The line is as follows: Jerusalem, Rome, The Reformation (Through Calvin and Luther and the Church of England among others), The American Presbyterian Church (now called the PCUSA), The Orthodox Presbyterian Church by virtue of the Northern Presbyterian Church (now the PCUSA) tossing out Gresham Machen, and then myself by virtue of the fact that Gresham Machen's church tossed me out.

It doesn't have to be me, but no one else has come forward and none of you can show me how your "churches" are anything but examples of Saul's rebellion.*

*(A post script, I have also written on the sins of Jeroboam the Son of Nebat. They are not simply Idolatry, but also putting people in office that ought not be there.)

 

[ChrisM]

While I don't agree with Keith or John in every point, the aforementioned previous discussions challenged much of what you said and I didn't see any Biblical responses from you. Would you care to answer their questions now, or do you still feel them to be in error? Regarding local church pattern, we should see not the Old Testament so much as the new, as the church is not Israel, but rather a new covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. Thus, while we see the OT referenced in Hebrews and other NT epistles, there are often vast differences as Israel saw many shadows that were fully revealed in Christ and thereby changed things. I think Galatians may be a profitable thing for us all to read again as we consider this issue.

Please refrain from posting entire Biblical text on the forum, as we all have Bibles to read and may not all use the same translation. Reference all Scripture cited, and for all those who do so, make sure your context is considered when citing verses. We all need to avoid supposition. I have seen far too often that what one concludes from a passage may not indeed flow out from the text, but rather are proof texts of what one comes to the passage to find. If you go looking for it and neglect context, subject, and circumstance, you could prove about anything you want to and claim the Bible was your source.

 

[ChrisM]

Again I repeat my "lineage" for you. The Roman Catholic Church is a descendant of the Church of Rome authorized by Paul and Jerusalem. There are other such descendants. Rome is not the only such legitimate Church. It is however, my ancestor in this matter.

The line is as follows: Jerusalem, Rome, The Reformation (Through Calvin and Luther and the Church of England among others), The American Presbyterian Church (now called the PCUSA), The Orthodox Presbyterian Church by virtue of the Northern Presbyterian Church (now the PCUSA) tossing out Gresham Machen, and then myself by virtue of the fact that Gresham Machen's church tossed me out.

It doesn't have to be me, but no one else has come forward and none of you can show me how your "churches" are anything but examples of Saul's rebellion.*

I don't follow this line of reasoning. The RCC is a perverted and man made religion of works for righteousness and contradicts many of the basic doctrines of salvation, thus the Reformation. In your personal case as you stated it, you have been rejected by those who ordained you. How does this make you qualified?

I was also commended by a protestant church which left the faulty RCC centuries ago, who then planted local churches all under the authority of other local churches. I resigned my charge voluntarily (though no doubt they would have revoked my commendation at some point due to doctrinal differences, specifically plural marriage). I see how the first century church's appointments were made ( not be lineage, but by righteous character ) and so I suppose I may just be missing something here. John the Baptist is never referred to as a priest by the Jews, though his father was indeed a priest. I would like more clarity on why they rejected John, with my understanding being that he roamed the wilderness eating bugs and preaching Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah.

 

[ChrisM]

Noting that this argument has indeed come up before and been well discussed, I am just going to throw in a few quotes that echo my sentiments.

One area of consideration for me to deal with is that which I have presented a couple of times. I do not accept that the Roman Catholic church ever was a genuine institution of God and never will be. You base much of your position of apostolic authority on the RCC. I am also one that does not accept the concept of a "universal" church. My position is that their are since apostolic times through this day, "churches". The church of the first born has not yet assembled, that will happen in heaven. Ecclesiastical authority could not have been vested in the Aaronic or Levitical priesthood, because the "ekklessia" did not yet exist until Jesus called out the 12 from among His disciples and named them Apostles. I am confident that my documentation will establish, fairly well, that Apostolic authority over churches does not exist, but rather that Jesus established churches (assemblies) as His authoritive voice in the community. This authority established, not by another ekklessia, but by the spirit of God speaking to or establishing His body. It will take a little more time for me to get my documentation ready.

From my readings of Luther and Calvin, and from my lectures by numerous Reformed scholars they both thought, along with others after them, that a true church was anywhere where the Spirit reigned through the proper teaching of the word and gospel, the right administration of the ordinances, and where discipline was carried out.

The fact that I am a blood bought child of God through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, I believe I have been called, even commanded, to go into the world to preach the Gospel, to baptize the converts and teach them to observe the things Christ commanded. Is this not indeed the starting of local churches?

 

[FollowingHim]

John is the son of a Priest. So what is John?

Excellent point, I hadn't thought about that before. This priesthood (whether officially recognised or not) would have helped to give John the recognition of the Hebrew people and drawn people to listen to his teaching, it may well have contributed greatly to the success of his ministry. It also explains Jesus' insistence on baptism by John, which is something I've never really understood the reason for.

Every church in the New Testament was planted and/or endorsed by human leadership in Jerusalem.

Again I repeat my "lineage" for you. The Roman Catholic Church is a descendant of the Church of Rome authorized by Paul and Jerusalem. There are other such descendants. Rome is not the only such legitimate Church. It is however, my ancestor in this matter.

The line is as follows: Jerusalem, Rome, The Reformation (Through Calvin and Luther and the Church of England among others), The American Presbyterian Church (now called the PCUSA), The Orthodox Presbyterian Church by virtue of the Northern Presbyterian Church (now the PCUSA) tossing out Gresham Machen, and then myself by virtue of the fact that Gresham Machen's church tossed me out.

It strikes me that your "lineage" is not a string of endorsements by leadership, but rather a string of rejections and condemnations by leadership. You do not claim authority to start a new church due to being endorsed by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but rather due to being kicked out of that church. The same goes for Luther etc. - you list people who were once endorsed by their church leadership, before being stripped of their offices and kicked out.

In scripture, does being stripped of your authority and kicked out by the church leadership qualify as an endorsement to start a new church? I can't think of a New Testament example, but in the Old Testament priesthood it certainly did not. For instance, in 1 Kings 2:26-27 Abiathar was kicked out of the priesthood - this didn't let him start a new priesthood, but rather sent him off to agricultural tasks.

Rather, you were endorsed by the Presbyterian church to serve within that church. I highly doubt you were ever endorsed by them to start any church outside their oversight. And then this endorsement was repealed by them when they kicked you out. I can't see that it has any relevance to planting a new church.

So if we are to claim that you need the endorsement of the church leadership to start a church, we're in a lot of trouble, because we don't have that. We end up back with the Catholic church being the only legitimate church.

We also have the difficulty of what do we define as the endorsement of the leadership - do you need to have been given the title of "elder", "minister", "priest", "decon", "missionary"? What about those churches that do not use some of these titles?

But this is not the case, because Jesus is now our High Priest. It is He who ultimately appoints or removes men from His service. Those He has appointed He gives authority to as outlined in scripture, but this does not mean He can not appoint others independently of them as well.

I must say following your logic, if we were shipwrecked on a desert island and happened to not have an ordained minister/elder among us, we'd be rather stuffed if we wanted to start a church.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Excellent point, I hadn't thought about that before. This priesthood (whether officially recognised or not) would have helped to give John the recognition of the Hebrew people and drawn people to listen to his teaching, it may well have contributed greatly to the success of his ministry. It also explains Jesus' insistence on baptism by John, which is something I've never really understood the reason for."

Praise God and thank you for that. I've been discussing this topic for a while and with few exceptions I mostly draw blank looks on what seems to me to be an obvious though oft overlooked point. You start to feel like you're nuts after a while Samuel, so again, thanks for seeing this as well.

It strikes me that your 'lineage' is not a string of endorsements by leadership, but rather a string of rejections and condemnations by leadership. You do not claim authority to start a new church due to being endorsed by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, but rather due to being kicked out of that church. The same goes for Luther etc. - you list people who were once endorsed by their church leadership, before being stripped of their offices and kicked out."

First I would note that Luther and Machen essentially claimed authority to start new denominations based on the fact that they had been thrown out. This of course, is not proof of it's efficacy, but I wouldn't be the first and wouldn't be alone.

Consider this:

If throwing out doesn't work (interesting though that a Hebrew verb often translated to the Greek root for 'Apostle/sent' meant 'cast out' though) then the whole Reformation is bogus and we should be Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox or Coptic. Maybe Church of England. Feel free to suggest others. That too I would happily endure if someone accepts me. In this matter I am more reluctant than Jonah.

I'd like to add that I am commanded to be in submission to a church and it's leadership and in fellowship. How else can I do that if I am cast out (illegitimately) and do not join a like minded body or form my own? This is a rhetorical remark designed to further justify why it is that I seek to establish a church. I am out of fellowship and I have no one to submit to, even as 'one to another'."

There is also the business that "those outside the church, God judges." What if those cast out illegitimately are before God? They would be of course, because they were cast out. How does God then judge those who were in essence, innocent? Does he make their life miserable to draw them back to the fold as they should go, in repentance?

The church, if it disciplines me in my righteousness (realizing none are close to entirely righteous), removes my covering of their authority, and leaves me alone to stand before God in this temporal sphere, in immediate judgement. Again, what if I am judged righteous? Also, have they not put me directly under God as all church leaders would be?

In scripture, does being stripped of your authority and kicked out by the church leadership qualify as an endorsement to start a new church?"

Not automatically. One would hope church discipline is usually for appropriate reasons, setting in motion events that lead to repentance.

I can't think of a New Testament example, but in the Old Testament priesthood it certainly did not. For instance, in 1 Kings 2:26-27 Abiathar was kicked out of the priesthood - this didn't let him start a new priesthood, but rather sent him off to agricultural tasks"

Abiathar's discipline it seems to me, is appropriate, in that it is a fulfillment of prophecy, if nothing else. I also believe this may be isolated to his function in certain priestly roles. He doesn't stop being a Levite. His departure mirrors what happened to Levites who served their term and went into retirement. They were to serve 20 years.

As for New Testament example, Christ is certainly judged by both religious and civil authorities. He is the stone the builders rejected, that became the chief corner. He was righteousness. The early believers when somewhat unwelcome in the temple, took to meeting in a doorway on the first day of the week (Sunday), Solomon's Portico.

So if we are to claim that you need the endorsement of the church leadership to start a church, we're in a lot of trouble, because we don't have that. We end up back with the Catholic church being the only legitimate church."

Yes, one of my points, exactly.

Jesus is now our High Priest. It is He who ultimately appoints or removes men from His service. Those He has appointed He gives authority to as outlined in scripture, but this does not mean He can not appoint others independently of them as well."

New Testament churches have deacons, elders and apostles. Their are, I agree, no priests. The patterns though are similar and we see no offices of the church filled without the appointment coming from or through men who were similarly appointed. As I have pointed out, Jesus is Baptized by a Levite/Priest (John). He inherits his role as King.

I must say following your logic, if we were shipwrecked on a desert island and happened to not have an ordained minister/elder among us, we'd be rather stuffed if we wanted to start a church."

We can always cite exceptions, but I note the Ethiopian Eunuch, the church in Rome and the Macedonians that said in a dream that someone should come to them.

While I don't agree with Keith or John in every point, the aforementioned previous discussions challenged much of what you said and I didn't see any Biblical responses from you."

Wow, that's precisely the opposite of what happened, and in fact John said to me more than once in person, that he had no scriptural refutation, he just didn't accept it. Keith for his part, simply piled up God words and dropped names repeatedly. He also invented concepts like "Free Gospel."

Please refrain from posting entire Biblical text on the forum, as we all have Bibles to read and may not all use the same translation. Reference all Scripture cited, and for all those who do so, make sure your context is considered when citing verses."

Wow. Maybe we need to talk about age, experience and respect for elders and each other as well as God's word.

I would further note, that almost without exception, when I quote Biblical text and do NOT give a version, it's the King James, since that version seems to raise the least in the way of controversy for most readers. If you don't know the passage or don't believe I quote it correctly, it's a simple matter to copy a sizable section of the quote, drop it in the search box of "Blue Letter Bible " or even Google, and chances are excellent you'll have the chapter and verse.

I note as well that no one in the Bible, when quoting the Bible, is ever asked for "Chapter and Verse." The populace even in a run down spiritual state, seemed to know when the word was being quoted, or not.

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree Abiathar's discipline was appropriate, he was expelled from the priesthood for supporting a rebellion against King David, everyone else involved was put to death but Abiathar was only allowed to live in recognition of good service before that. And it was fulfilment of a prophecy. So it's not a great example, I just can't think of an example of inappropriate discipline, maybe someone else can?

Your argument appears to be based primarily on examples of church planting in he New Testament. Yes, the churches in the New Testament were established by the apostles and people sent out from them. This is an example of church planting, just as Adam and Eve's monogamy is one example of marriage. Does that example give a clear guideline for the qualifications we need before we can plant a church? Does it preclude any other form of church planting?

Three questions to dig into this one a bit:
1) I agree someone kicked out of a church stands before God. But, we all stand before God. How does that make us any different? If someone was commended by their church then had that commendation revoked, or if they never had that commendation in the first place, they are just the same are they not, because neither has the commendation of a church?

2) Why does the former commendation of men who are unfaithful enough to God that they would reject a brother unjustly actually bear any weight?

3) Finally, what do you class as enough commendation by the past church to allow someone to start a new church once they have been kicked out? Is a layperson who is kicked out able to start their own church? If not, is a deacon? If not, is one ordained for ministry or missionary work? If not, must they have been an elder? And where does this line come from in scripture?

Just working out how far up the ladder I have to climb before I turn up with two wives and get kicked out.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

I just can't think of an example of inappropriate discipline, maybe someone else can?"

I apologize for not being clear enough. Christ is a literally perfect example. See how robust and sweeping his condemnation was. See how great his perfection in thought and deed. See how lofty his ascension. He is the stone rejected that becomes the chief corner on which all is based. In this way I also offered the early believers in Jerusalem who were marginalized to meeting in a doorway. Prior to that they had worshiped in the temple (Paul) and made offerings. The whole of the church is built on men who were jailed and nearly beaten to death by existing authorities of the church, and hunted.

Your argument appears to be based primarily on examples of church planting in he New Testament."

This is covered (I believe) in the two referenced threads. Nevertheless I would point out the Levites' offices. After Sinai God does all in the way of church (temple) authority through the offices he gives to men. When the people ask that others speak to God for them, the origin of the Levitical priesthood, God says: "I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken."

Later, we come upon Christ who is King by birth. He submits though to the existing priesthood and their offices through John prior to claiming his priestly office. I would also point out there are zero examples of men elevating themselves to office in the church on their own without condemnation. See the Sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who did cause Israel to sin, in that (among other things), he made priests out of men who were not to be priests.

I agree someone kicked out of a church stands before God. But, we all stand before God. How does that make us any different?"

Since I am commanded to church, and not born to office (none of us are born into it in the "Church Age"). We begin our lives in worship, under authority. We do not know of the Gospel by vision. We know of the Gospel because God sent preachers. "How shall they hear, unless there is a preacher?"

If someone was commended by their church then had that commendation revoked, or if they never had that commendation in the first place, they are just the same are they not, because neither has the commendation of a church?"

In the cases of Luther and Machen, both men had office in the church. I would contend I also had office, transferred to me in the form of taking the mantle of one, at his right hand, deliberately placed there for that reason, on his death bed. I can't honestly say what would be much different about a regular pew sitter or member who was cast out. I have been a formal member of a Presbyterian denomination and am at least the third generation of my family to sit as a church leader. I do not believe in hereditary office, but my family has been faithful or had one among them that was faithful for generations.

Why does the former commendation of men who are unfaithful enough to God that they would reject a brother unjustly actually bear any weight?"

Is it important, once we know it does? Christ's office as King comes through many men, deep in vile sin, unrepentant and dead in those sins. I gave the example of Caiaphas prophesying. Paul got mouthy with a High Priest, got slapped for it, got mouthier, was told the man was a High Priest and apologized quoting the underlying scripture. We are not respecters so much of persons, but of offices, which God establishes. The passage about Caiaphas openly declares that his prophecy is the result of his office.

Finally, what do you class as enough commendation by the past church to allow someone to start a new church once they have been kicked out? Is a layperson who is kicked out able to start their own church? If not, is a deacon? If not, is one ordained for ministry or missionary work? If not, must they have been an elder? And where does this line come from in scripture? "

My study of scripture says office in the church is a lifetime office, so I would say that at least a man with office already, who is inappropriately disciplined, could then start his own. This seems to be the pattern as well of church history within the reformation.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

While I don't agree with Keith or John in every point, the aforementioned previous discussions challenged much of what you said and I didn't see any Biblical responses from you."

You should not support them in all things.

I quoted or referred to the following passages: Acts 4,5,23,24 & 26. 1st Corinthians 1. 1st Chronicles 8. 2nd Chronicles 22 & 23. Deuteronomy 5. Ecclesiastes 1 & 12. Exodus 20 & 21. Ezra 2 & 8. Galatians 2. Hebrews 3, 6 & 7. Isaiah 55. The Gospel of John 11 & 14. 1st Kings 8, 12 & 16. 2nd Kings 8 & 11. Malachi 3. Matthew 3, 5, 16 & 23. Philemon 1. Proverbs 26. Psalm 119. Revelation 3. 1st Samuel 12. 1st Timothy 3. 2nd Timothy 3.

In turn, Keith quoted from Acts 14, 15 & 22. 1st Corinthians 12. 2nd Corinthians 6 & 13. Galatians 3. The Gospel of John 1 & 3. 1st John 3. Luke 1. Mathew 23 & 28. 2nd Peter 1. Romans 8, 9 & 13. Titus 1.

Perhaps I missed a few of Keith's references, and perhaps some of mine. If you did not see a "Biblical Response" from me, then it's either that you did not read the material or you judged my responses a misuse of scripture or out of context.

This is disheartening though. I don't detect a sense of fairness, an adherence to scripture or reasoning on your part. Certainly if I denied Christ, one reference is enough to refute me. This says that Keith could be right even though he quotes less scripture, hyperlinks to none of them, and rarely quoted the actual text, preferring instead to list "cites" as proof of his interpretations. Indeed, even if he does support bisexuality among the wives of one man, this too does not disprove his point.

 

[ChrisM]

Hugh,

I don't see how you are any different than Doc (ordained preacher/pastor/missionary), myself (formerly commended evangelist/teacher) or Samuel (currently in happy fellowship and a teacher of God's Word) in the issue of qualification for starting or leading a church. This issue of authority was argued long ago in a post that you started, and I admit that I skimmed at times in reading the lengthy posts from years past between yourself and men who left our forums due to doctrinal differences. I merely said that in that specific case Keith made some good points.

John was the son of a priest, that does not make him a priest. He never claimed priesthood, and no one seemed to think of him as a priest whilst he lived in the desert proclaiming what they all believed was a false Messiah.

I agree that Paul was commended by the council in Jerusalem. From there, Paul told others to appoint elders and so on and so forth did continue and does to this day. However, I believe that the Great Commission, so called, directly applies to all Christians. We are all commanded to preach the Gospel, make disciples, baptize the converts, and teach them to observe Jesus's commands. This is not church planting per se, but certainly is what I am doing in my community today, and I don't claim any special authority to start a church. I also wholeheartedly reject the Roman church as having any authority at any time, and many would stand with me from the Reformation, who stated in fact that the pope was antichrist. This is not the final "anti-christ, but that which Peter refers to, ironically.

I agree that disobedient and troublesome men often leave churches when they are indeed wrong and claim that God called them to start a new work. Not knowing all of these men intimately, I can only go on what they tell me and pray for discernment if I am to be involved. This also is not the purpose of our site, but primarily to encourage Christian marriage and a proper understanding of Biblical marriage to include allowances for polygyny.

Your argument that one needs authority, to be sent out, to start a church would negate your qualifications and most of us including yourself, I would think. However, if you get a pass, then many of us also would be in the same boat, as many BF members are former pastors, elders, evangelists, teachers, etc. who were cast out based only on the issue of polygyny, which we all now believe to be acceptable in God's eyes. Either way, we are in the same boat together in my opinion.

Hugh, I meant no dishonor to you or anyone else, but you are not an elder over me but a brother in Christ. If I were in fellowship in your church, that would be different, but this is not a church but an internet discussion group. If you would like to talk about the issue, feel free.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

You claim current authority due to lifelong appointment......"

Um, not really sure I've done that, even tough I lean heavily to the idea that an appointment to elder is to be for life. There could be an exception due to discipline, but I'm still out to lunch on that issue.

...even though those who ordained or commended you indeed do not accept you and did not send you out to start a church."

So, you're Roman Catholic then? Greek Orthodox? Coptic?

Thus, I don't see how you are any different than Doc (ordained preacher/pastor/missionary), myself (formerly commended evangelist/teacher) or Samuel (currently in happy fellowship and a teacher of God's Word) in the issue of qualification for starting or leading a church."

I do not recall EVER questioning YOUR credential or Samuel's. Eventually Keith claimed he had been appointed in a way that I would find acceptable, and so tried to end the discussion. Fine and good, but I don't accept that people come together and say "Hey KIDS, let's start a CHURCH," peer inside their souls and discern who is led by the spirit to be a leader. Keith tried to claim this was a legitimate way to become an Elder. It is my claim that Elders appoint Elders and that casting out may well be a form of ordination if it is not for just cause.

John was the son of a priest, that does not make him a priest. He never claimed priesthood, and no one seemed to think of him as a priest whilst he lived in the desert proclaiming what they all believed was a false Messiah. "

If John was the son of a priest by a wife of marriage and betrothal, he was a priest.

I agree that Paul was commended by the council in Jerusalem. From there, Paul told others to appoint elders and so on and so forth did continue and does to this day."

The essence of my argument is that you can show no place in scripture where Elder does not appoint Elder in the church. You cannot show that since the giving of the law that any man claimed legitimate priesthood in Israel except by the human appointment that came (in their case) through inheritance.

I believe that the Great Commission, so called, directly applies to all Christians. We are all commanded to preach the Gospel, make disciples, baptize the converts, and teach them to observe Jesus's commands. This is not church planting per se, but certainly is what I am doing in my community today..."

I do not object to the preaching of the Gospel. If Paul can state that he rejoices it is preached for wrong motive, I will certainly grant you correct motive and applaud that more loudly.

I also wholeheartedly reject the Roman church as having any authority at any time, and many would stand with me from the Reformation, who stated in fact that the pope was antichrist."

Wow. At any time? At the time of Augustine? Really?

This is not the final "anti-christ, but that which Peter refers to, ironically."

It is my contention the RCC starts with Paul and one of their first errors was to seek primacy over all other "seas" of the church by grasping at a misinterpretation of the "Keys to the Kingdom" passage. I sometimes think someone blurted that out and then said "that's my story and I'm sticking to it."

I agree that disobedient and troublesome men often leave churches when they are indeed wrong and claim that God called them to start a new work. Not knowing all of these men intimately, I can only go on what they tell me and pray for discernment if I am to be involved. This also is not the purpose of our site, but primarily to encourage Christian marriage and a proper understanding of Biblical marriage to include allowances for polygyny."

And I continue to point out that you can't be "Biblical" just on the issue of marriage. Emphasize it, sure. This needs to be done. You're doing it here, but at some point it must be a doorway into greater Christendom and Christian living, or you're not doing anything of value.

The sad truth is it's all important if you deny the truth of plural (polygynous) marriage, but it's really not important at all if you do accept it. What do you do then? As I point out, even Salvation is called "Elementary" for the believer, how much more so is the limited practice of plural marriage? It's only important if you DENY it for the simple reason that it's an interlocking part of God's truth. You can't throw any part of it out, and that too is part of my point.

Sadly, it defines us from the point of view of the rest of Christianity. Thus it separates us. Thus it becomes VERY important to do something about this rift. We are commanded to fellowship, we are commanded to church.

Your argument that one needs authority, to be sent out, to start a church would negate your qualifications and most of us including yourself, I would think."

You then need to find a Bibically conservative denomination.

Rather, here on a forum over which I do have authority I have allowed you to post whatever you like and continue to do so, as we don't try to quiet those who disagree with us."

Certainly that part of this forum has improved. A number of my long absences have had to do with the fact that this forum indeed DID caution me at every turn and censored me regularly and deleted and closed threads. So I left. I clearly didn't leave with the idea of it being permanent though I did half rhetorically/half seriously DARE some in authority here to do so. I dislike being invited to a place, and then having what I say erased. I continue to ask why anyone wanted me here in the first place. Either I'm welcome, or I'm not. At least at this time, I seem a bit more welcome.

I meant no dishonor to you or anyone else, but you are not an elder over me but a brother in Christ. If I were in fellowship in your church, that would be different, but this is not a church but an internet discussion group. If you would like to talk about the issue, feel free."

You have treated me as if I am not an elder. If I am to consider your credential valid, certainly you must consider mine to be as well.