There were several things that contributed to the rise of congregationalism. One of those things was the reemergence of Greek and Hebrew copies of the Scriptures and the rise in the number of scholars would could read Greek and Hebrew.For those churches, such as Baptists, who are congregationalists, but also adhere who Sola Scriptura, what is their basis for this model of church governance?
No doubt the apostles exercised a real authority over the churches, but I don’t think it was an unchallenged authority. You are correct that the apostles established churches, and they of course would continue to exercise a natural authority over the churches they helped to found. Yet, if we take Paul as an example, the reason he had to write many of his letters was because his authority was NOT unchallenged. The Epistle to the Galatians begins with Paul having to defend his own authority.I think it would be impossible to deny that during the apostolic age, at any rate, the apostles not only established local churches, but appointed their elders and continued to supervise their activities via letters and visits.
But where no such necessity exists, and where there are those who have the right, the power, and the gift to teach, no bishop ought to appoint anyone without the consent, choice and call of the congregation; it is his duty rather to confirm the man whom the congregation has elected and called. If the bishop does not confirm him, he is none the less confirmed by virtue of the call of the congregation. For neither Titus nor Timothy nor Paul appointed any priest unless he was chosen and called by the congregation. This is clearly proved from Paul’s words in Titus 1:7 and 1 Timothy 3:2, “A bishop, or priest, must be blameless”; and, “The deacons must first be proved.” Titus certainly did not know who was blameless: this information must needs come from the congregation, who must bring such a one to his attention. We read also in Acts 6:2, with respect to a very minor office, that the apostles themselves did not venture to appoint men to be deacons without the knowledge and consent of the congregation. The congregation, on the contrary, chose and called the seven deacons, and the apostles confirmed them. But if the apostles did not venture, upon their own authority, to appoint men to an office that had to do merely with the distribution of bodily food, how should they have been so bold as to commit to anyone the highest office of all, that of preaching, by their own power and without the knowledge, consent and call of the congregation?
Neither do we find anything in Scripture approaching apostolic succession or a monarchical episcopate. We can look at Paul’s directions to the Corinthians of what their church services should be like in 1 Corinthians 14:26-33. We see a lot less hierarchy, and even the command that if one person is speaking but another person feels led to prophesy then the first person should stop and yield to the other.Even if we accept that all Christians exercise the power of the keys (and even Catholics would accept this to a certain extent - the baptismal priesthood of all the faithful), there certainly isn’t a verse where St. Paul writes “Right now I and the other apostles appoint elders and issue edicts, but when we’re gone you will all be on your own.”
Notice what St. Paul does here. He commands the man who is teaching to hold his peace and to retire (among Christians!), and commands the hearer to arise, even without a call, because necessity knows no law.
If then St. Paul here bids anyone, in case of necessity, among Christians, to arise even without a call, and calls him by virtue of this word of God; and if he bids the other to retire, and deposes him by virtue of these words: how much more does an entire Christian congregation have the right to call a man to this office whenever it becomes necessary! And it is always necessary, and never more than now. For in the same passage St. Paul gives to every Christian the power to teach among Christians whenever it becomes necessary, “Ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be admonished”; and, “Desire earnestly to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues; but let all things be done decently and in order.” Take this passage as a most sure basis, which gives more than sufficient authority to the Christian congregation to preach, to permit men to preach, and to call preachers. Especially in case of necessity, this passage itself calls everyone in particular, without any call of men; so that we might have no doubt that the congregation which has the Gospel may and should choose and call, out of its number, one who is to teach the Word in its stead.
Some, not all, would say that church polity is not something that is explicitly spelled out in Scripture and therefore specific forms are less important than that those chosen to lead continue to propagate the gospel.I would also have to conclude that this mode of governance is primarily based on a sacred tradition that has been passed down, rather than a clear, explicit Biblical mandate (despite protests of “Sola” Scriptura).
Yes, I have met people online whose argument is precisely that. They say there was a single generation of apostles. When an apostle died, or was imprisoned, or moved away, he was not replaced.I would have to assume that the entire congregational mindset is based on the premise that there was a fundamental shift in Church governance after the death of the apostles…an event not recorded in Scripture.
They claim to be restoring the form of church governance that is described in the Epistles and that for that reason, in their view, is the only legitimate form. Whenever I have asked about Titus 1:5, the usual answer is that Titus was an apostle and had no successor.If we accept that congregationalism is a valid model of church governance, it remains a historical fact that it didn’t exist for most of Church history.