rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_626ca4fc-5cfc-5f1e-9f3b-ec4a0c308240">127
The scriptural support for a plurality of elders in a local church can be found first in the fact that whenever elders are mentioned in the New Testament, they are always spoken of in the plural.128 Second, the fact that the leadership of the church at Ephesus is identified by “elders” in Acts 20:17 provides yet further proof for plurality of eldership in the New Testament. It was not a single pastor that Paul wanted to see; it was a body of elders that was entrusted with leading the Ephesian church.
Within congregationalism, church officers are generally viewed as representatives and servants of the church, answerable to those who have chosen them.129 They are not to exercise their authority independently of, or contrary to, the wishes of the people.130 Proponents of congregationalism believe that biblical church discipline is a function of a congregation, citing passages like Matt 18:17, 1 Cor 5:4–5, 2 Cor 2:6, and 2 Thess 3:6, 14–15 in support of this view. In Matthew, the last resort in the discipline process is for the whole congregation to be involved. In 1 Corinthians, Paul directs the church to deal with the incest among them on a congregational level. In 2 Corinthians, he speaks of the benefits of disciplinary action exercised by the majority. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians, the whole church is commanded to withdraw from the one with “disorderly” conduct. As Gerald P. Cowen explains, “the final court of appeal in matters of discipline is the church as a whole, not the officers or any representative body.”131 MacArthur’s understanding may be used as a universal example of the common sentiment within this tradition: “Our Lord clearly teaches here that ultimately the entire assembly of believers has a responsibility to follow through in seeking restoration of a sinning member.”132 Having introduced the concept of Church Polity and various polity models, it is now time to examine the hermeneutical principles which form the foundation of the argument within this work.
24. Enjoying a measure of recent popularity, the topic of sufficiency of Scripture has received much attention in print. The following few titles are recommended for those interested in further research in the area of sufficiency: Yarnell, The Formation of Christian Doctrine, 25–28; Weeks, Sufficiency of Scripture; Murray, Claims of Truth, ch. 3; Pipa and Wortman, Written for Our Instruction.
25. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 127.
26. Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 381. While his definition may sound similar to Grudem’s, Congar’s true meaning is something entirely different, for only a few pages later Congar espouses, “There is no one who holds that the letter of the Text alone is sufficient,” (ibid., 409).
27. Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., s.v. “Polity.”
28. Erickson, “Polity,” 155.
29. Dargan, Ecclesiology, 11.
30. Brand and Norman, Perspectives on Church Government, 5.
31. Unless otherwise noted, quotations have been transliterated from the original Greek.
32. Zuck, “Why of Bible Interpretation,” 22.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., 23.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid., 24.
39. Ibid., 25.
40. Fee, Gospel and Spirit, 142.
41. Pre-understanding is to be differentiated from a definitive understanding. The latter is the final understanding of the text which is produced through eisegesis rather than exegesis, while the former is the theological “baggage” that the interpreter brings to the text and which will influence how he sees the text (Bultmann, “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” 294).
42. Craik, New Testament Church Order, 3–4.
43. This is the Greek term that is used in the New Testament to designate an “overseer.” Presently, those denominations that practice the episcopal model of church government translate episkopos as “bishop.”
44. One of the major distinctions of Methodism is that, in adopting an episcopal polity, it lessened the power of the bishop. For an introduction of the Methodist concept of this office, see Moede, Office of Bishop in Methodism and Erickson, Christian Theology, 1081. For a more in-depth overview of the Methodist polity, consult Kern, Christianity as Organized, 493–520.
45. For a helpful overview of the Lutheran polity, see Kern, Christianity as Organized, 463–69.
46. Such as the Church of God (Anderson, IN) and the Church of God (Cleveland, TN).
47. Peter Toon prefers to call this form of church government synodical rather than episcopal. Anglican polity is considered to be somewhat of a “mid-range” on an episcopal scale, with Methodist churches being the simplest, authorizing only one level of bishops, and Catholic churches the most complex, with multiple layers of bishops. For an additional source on Anglican polity, see Toon, “Episcopalianism.”
48. Toon, “Episcopalianism,” 28.
49. Ibid., 24.
50. Potter, Church Government, 3, 24. By “Jewish church,” Potter, a nineteenth-century Archbishop of Canterbury, means Israel’s Old Testament covenant relationship with YHWH. Incidentally, having claimed that the Bible contains no blueprint for church organization, Toon resorts to following in the footsteps of earlier theologians from whom he had previously distanced himself by using the
