Quote:
Originally Posted by toddpedlar  I'm wondering if there is a baptist aboard (or two) who would be willing to explain
the ins and outs of the congregational view of polity. On what basis is congregationalism
(i.e. the top court of the church is the session of elders in the local church) supported by Scripture?
I don't mean rank democracy (which I don't think any here truly hold to - that power is really
invested in the people, rather than the officers of the church) by the way, but elder-led
congregationalism. I'd like to try to understand this so that I can better dialog with people
of the congregational mindset.
Thanks,
Todd |
Sorry I missed this, Todd, and I can't go into great detail. At best I can only give a hint at it right now:
Baptists, and other Congregationalists (I presume) attempt to draw their pattern from Acts primarily. We view Acts 13, for instance, as showing that a local congregation did the ordaining, subject to the Holy Spirit.
We also see this in Acts 11, where the local church acted by sending "to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul" the alms. The alms were sent to the elders in Jerusalem, not the apostles.
Another point comes up in Acts 15. I think most Presbyterians view the Jerusalem council as a General Assembly. Baptists point out that it could equally, or perhaps more, be viewed as a request for discipline from a sister church. Antioch was troubled by people from the Jerusalem church, so "they (the church) determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question." 15:2. It looks like Antioch, as an independent church, is requesting the church in Jerusalem to do something about its members. It is also noted that Paul eagerly consented to the ruling, presumably acting in his capacity as an ordained representative of Antioch as well as an apostle. In other words, he didn't submit to their authority because of their authority, but rather agreed with the soundness of the decision.
I'm not trying to make an exhaustive argument (I don't have the time and haven't studied it as much as I ought), but I thought this would at least shed some light on the question.