Biblical Support for "Independent Churches"?

[awfulthings9]

Some groups, such as the Church of Christ, claim great pride in being independent churches, “just like the early church”. We, as Catholics, however, believe in an organized church with a hierarchial leadership.

When I’ve asked members from independent churches to show the verses they use to support the idea that the churches opperate independently, the most that I’ve been shown is a verse where Paul greets the elders of a church with a holy kiss.

On the other hand, I see great evidence for an organized church. Paul sends letters of correction to smaller churches, the apostles are put in charge of the church, etc.

I don’t want to argue the point here, but for any of you who might know what verses are commonly used to support the idea of an independent church, especially some of you from that background, please contribute so I can get a better understanding of this belief.

In Christ …

 

[mozart-250]

I think the argument is that Jesus didn’t design a centralized church when He designed the church.

Therefore what you are left with is a series of independent churches.

I sort of hope this thread gets some traffic and discussion by folks other than myself. This has been a question in the back of my mind for sometime as to what Jesus designed as the organization for his church. Of course y’all believed that Jesus designed a centralized church and y’all are it. I would sort of like to see the other side here.

At any rate it is kind of hard for me to imagine that what we see today (a church divided into denominations) is what Jesus had in mind.when He designed the church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Henry Sheldon

As the more important officers of the Church, the following classes may be enumerated: (1) apostles, (2) prophets, (3) evangelists, (4) presbyters, or bishops, (5) deacons. The first three classes were general officers, the last two local. The pastors and teachers mentioned by Paul (Eph. iv. 11) may be regarded as embraced in the fourth class. The form of the original suggests that these two words were meant to denote the same group of officers. [So Lightfoot end others.] The presbyters, to be sure, may have occupied at the outset more distinctively the position of pastors, or administrators, than that of teachers; but certainly teaching came very soon to be regarded as an important part of their oflice. This is sufficiently indicated by the qualifications which Paul emphasizes’ in his later Epistles (1 Tim. iii. 2; Titus i. 9).

The New Testament seems to indicate that for the apostolic office two qualifications were counted essential: first, that the incumbent should have been a witness of the facts of the gospel history, especially the resurrection; and, secondly, that he should have received a positive call from Christ to the office (Acts i. 21-22; 1 Cor. xv. 8; Gal. i. 1). In case of the original eleven, both of these conditions were evidently fulfilled. They were also fulfilled in the case of Paul. In virtue of a special manifestation of the ascended Christ, he was enabled to mention himself among the witnesses of the resurrection. His call also was so direct and positive that he could write: “Paul an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ.” Concerning Matthias, we have a less direct and formal assurance. He was a witness of Christ’s resurrection, but as to his call we have only the account of his election by the Christian assembly. As this election took place before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, some have entertained the suspicion that Matthias was an apostle by the will of man rather than by the will of Christ. Certainly if the apostolate was limited to the number twelve, this is the explanation that must be accepted. But there is no need of affirming such a limitation. That Christ should speak of only twelve thrones (Matt. xix. 28), just corresponded to the number of apostles who were then with him. That the Revelator should represent that just twelve names were engraved on the foundations of the wall of the New Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 14), is sufficiently explained by the Jewish preference for round numbers, and the association of Jewish thought with the tribal number twelve. How little such phraseology compels us to limit the number of the apostles to twelve, is shown by the case of the tribes themselves. These were continually spoken of as the twelve tribes, whereas thirteen tribes settled in Palestine. Still the apostolate, if not strictly limited to the number twelve, is to be regarded as a limited office Its first incumbents were few; and they had, properly speaking, no successors. They were designed for a special work of foundation which needs not to be repeated. The qualifications which the New Testament associates with their office bar out the idea of its transmission. Official substitutes to a certain extent, or as respects some parts of their functions, they may have bad, but not successors proper.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The office of the prophets was connected with teaching, rather than with administration. As inspired preachers of the truth, they exercised their gifts more or less at large in the Church. Paul’s companion, Silas, together with Agabus and Judas, are examples. The evangelists had similar functions; and some, indeed, belonged to both classes. They served as itinerant missionaries and vicegerents of the apostles, and labored under their direction in varied fields. Timothy, Titus, Luke, and John Mark belonged to this class.

The presbyters, or elders, were the highest local authority in a church. With them rested the chief responsibility, both for the government of the Christian society and for the provision of suitable instruction. The common mention of thern in the plural shows that a number were elected to the office in each church. They formed a presiding council analogous to the board of elders in the Jewish synagogue. It was from the synagogue that the name presbyter, or elder, was borrowed. The episcopal title, on the other hand, the name overseer, or bishop, was of Gentile origin, having been used among the Greeks to indicate an ofIice involving a species of oversight. Originally both names related entirely to the same office The New Testament recognizes no distinction between them. The words presbyter and bishop are used interchangeably. In the twentieth chapter of Acts, Paul calls the same body, in one instance presbyters, in another bishops. In his Epistle to Titus he directs him to ordain presbyters; but, when he goes on to mention the qualifications of these officials, he uses the word bishop. In the opening of his Epistle to the Phillipians, the apostle salutes the bishops and deacons, making no mention of the presbyters, whom he evidently would have mentioned had he not considered them identical with the bishops. Likewise, in the First Epistle to Timothy, he passes directly from bishops to deacons (chap. iii.). Peter also addresses the presbyters in a way that implies that they were the highest local authority in the several churches, and acknowledged no officer between them and the apostles (1 Pet. v. 1-2). It is possible, indeed, that, before the death of the Apostle John, in many congregations, one of the presbyters, as president of the board of presbyters, became distinguished from the general body, and ranked as primus interpares. Such a development would have been entirely natural, and would have served as a suitable means of transition to those local bishops who appear after the apostolic age. But the New Testament does not inform us of the growth even of this distinction. It nowhere raises one presbyter above the rest, and clothes him with a special dignity as bishop. The angels of the Asiatic churches whdm the Revelator addressed are no exception. Language so highly figurative affords no definite information on church constitution. The angel might be regarded as an ideal representative of the church addressed, or as a personification of its government, however that was constituted. A bishop in the later sense nowhere appears within the New-Testament horizon. Evangelists, like Timothy and Titus, were remote from that type of officer. They were simply trusted friends and ministers extraordinary of the apostle, no more like the bishops of the second century than a special ambassador is like a permanent governor of a specified district.

 

[amontoya]

• 1 Timothy 5:17 “The elders who direct the affairs of the church…”
• Acts 14:23 “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church…”
• Titus 1:5 “…appoint elders in every town…”
  Members of the Church of Christ believe in One Church, but many churches. Christ is the Head of the Church. The elders lead the churches. They believe the Apostles had authority over the Church when they were alive, but the office died with them. They interpret Scripture to mean that, because elders “direct the affairs of the church,” and “each church” has elders, then each church directs its own affairs.

 

[angelusm]

Some groups, such as the Church of Christ, claim great pride in being independent churches, “just like the early church”. We, as Catholics, however, believe in an organized church with a hierarchial leadership.

When I’ve asked members from independent churches to show the verses they use to support the idea that the churches opperate independently, the most that I’ve been shown is a verse where Paul greets the elders of a church with a holy kiss.

On the other hand, I see great evidence for an organized church. Paul sends letters of correction to smaller churches, the apostles are put in charge of the church, etc.

I don’t want to argue the point here, but for any of you who might know what verses are commonly used to support the idea of an independent church, especially some of you from that background, please contribute so I can get a better understanding of this belief.

In Christ …

Jesus founded one Church and christians lived in unity, there weren’t any “independent churches”. The truth is they are cut off branches, they are separated from Peter. There’s no passage in the Bible that supports divisions between christians. One more thing: “independent” from what? Or maybe private sects or private business called “independent church”?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The Catholic response would be is that Jesus created His Church to be One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic. While the Church proper is One, we are made up of many sui ierus churches and different rites with different hierarchs. Every local diocese is one church within a communion we call the Catholic Church. It exists independently of the other dioceses, but not without them either as to be schismatic because we share the same Faith in the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.

 

[mozart-250]

How would Independent Churches define heresy?

Imagine the Arian controversy of the 300s. How would that have been settled with independent churches only? What if there were some indepependent churches that believed in the trinity and other independent churches that believed in Arianism?

And if the only Biblical method of organization is through independent churches, what about denominations like Southern Baptist and Assembly of God? Are they unscriptural?

How would Matthew 18:15-20 work with disputes that cross independent churches. What if one independent church sides with the accused and the other independent church sides with the accuser? How is this resolved?

Is Church of Christ really a set of independent churches? Can one pastor a “Church of Christ” and believe that baptism does not contribute to salvation? If not who determines that article of faith for “Church of Christ”?

 

[Rightlydivide]

How would Independent Churches define heresy?

Imagine the Arian controversy of the 300s. How would that have been settled with independent churches only? What if there were some indepependent churches that believed in the trinity and other independent churches that believed in Arianism?

And if the only Biblical method of organization is through independent churches, what about denominations like Southern Baptist and Assembly of God? Are they unscriptural?

Is Church of Christ really a set of independent churches? Can one pastor a “Church of Christ” and believe that baptism does not contribute to salvation? If not who determines that article of faith for “Church of Christ”?

Your example of the Church of Christ actually answers your question. By and large, they have remarkable uniformity. Practical uniformity. Not uniformity as defined as “officially our church teaches this and most people ignore it”.
As far as what denominations are scriptural, I think you could make a strong argument for denominational support in the model of Acts 15 but that could also be a case of independent churches gathering to come to consensus without any formal legal ties.
Because the crux of it is that denominations have legal ties and the Bible of course does not address it to that extent.
One thing I know you realize is that the Church IS splintered in thousands of pieces. One can see that has the huge problem or they can look back on a golden era of the church being more unified and…perhaps…look at the fruits of “absolute power”.
I know the Catholics will defend the fruits of that church but as a Protestant will you?
Good questions.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Imagine the Arian controversy of the 300s. How would that have been settled with independent churches only?

How would that have been settled in a democracy?

Settling heresies has 2 requirements.

1. A dictatorial emperial government.
2. An organized state religion.

We are living in a democracy so who cares about independent churches?

 

[mozart-250]

Your example of the Church of Christ actually answers your question. By and large, they have remarkable uniformity. Practical uniformity. Not uniformity as defined as “officially our church teaches this and most people ignore it”.

So somebody can start a Church of Christ that believes baptism in no way contributes to salvation? Interesting.

How about doctrinal disputes between independent churches. Even today there are Church of Christ, Baptist, and Pentecostal independent churches. All three of these disagree with each other in respect to water baptism and speaking on tongues (to the extent that the other groups can be heretical to each other). Who decides these? Do I assume these issues don’t matter?

As far as what denominations are scriptural, I think you could make a strong argument for denominational support in the model of Acts 15 but that could also be a case of independent churches gathering to come to consensus without any formal legal ties.
Because the crux of it is that denominations have legal ties and the Bible of course does not address it to that extent.

Wasn’t Acts 15 arbitrated by the apostles and elders (of what)? Since I am told there are no more apostles, how would a similar situation have been handled after the death of the last apostle?

I have a hard time seeing denominations in Acts 15 myself.

One thing I know you realize is that the Church IS splintered in thousands of pieces. One can see that has the huge problem or they can look back on a golden era of the church being more unified and…perhaps…look at the fruits of “absolute power”.
I know the Catholics will defend the fruits of that church but as a Protestant will you?

There are two issues here
(1) What did God design
(2) How did man make a mess of it

I have long thought that from God’s perspective the fracturing of the church that we see today is preferable to the abuse of power that historically developed in the church. Sort of like the Tower of Babel 2.0. But that doesn’t mean that the fracturing we see today is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church.

 

[Rightlydivide]

=mozart-250;2964165]So somebody can start a Church of Christ that believes baptism in no way contributes to salvation? Interesting.

Anyone can start a church as you well know. It would not be in fellowship with the other churches, to whatever extent they fellowship.

How about doctrinal disputes between independent churches. Even today there are Church of Christ, Baptist, and Pentecostal independent churches. All three of these disagree with each other in respect to water baptism and speaking on tongues (to the extent that the other groups can be heretical to each other). Who decides these? Do I assume these issues don’t matter?

They decide the matters for themselves, you already know the answer to that. The choices are very simple though based upon your question:

1. God set up a central organization. It failed to keep the body of Christ united.
2. God set up a decentralized organization. It failed to keep the body of Christ united.
   Now of course, God knew what would happen. God sees the future and knows.
   It is going to be up to you to decide which of these are the case. As a person coming into Christianity later in life, I was drawn in by the witness and lives on the Christians I met. THEN I looked at the evidence. In my particular life, the people I personally know who are part of the central organization did not lead lives that drew me to Christ. The people that belong to the decentralized organization did. That is…just the way if happened for me.

Wasn’t Acts 15 arbitrated by the apostles and elders (of what)? Since I am told there are no more apostles, how would a similar situation have been handled after the death of the last apostle?

Apostles and elders of the churches with special emphasis on what Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James thought.

I have long thought that from God’s perspective the fracturing of the church that we see today is preferable to the abuse of power that historically developed in the church. Sort of like the Tower of Babel 2.0. But that doesn’t mean that the fracturing we see today is what Jesus had in mind when He designed the church.

I agree with your first statement.
God’s will be done.