Study of Denomintions 03/28/2010

A Study of Denominations
Cont. from last week

Homosexual Evangelists
There are many denominations today that not only accept practicing homosexuals into their groups but are even allowing them to perform the functions of the evangelist. Some are even installing homosexuals as bishops! What do the Scriptures say about homosexuals and evangelism?

The Scriptures are silent about homosexuals evangelizing, and this is not surprising since the Scriptures teach clearly that homosexuality is a sin in Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 :

and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.


Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.


Therefore, we can see that the homosexual lifestyle is condemned as sinful in the Scriptures, and we cannot expect that one who is flagrantly violating God's Word would be vested with the authority to teach it or to shepherd God's flock!

Argument: Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 denounce the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle; those homosexuals living in a monogamous relationship are not condemned in these passages!

Answer: This type of distinction is not even seen in the text. There are no words spoken by Paul that condemn a "promiscuous" homosexual lifestyle as opposed to a "monogamous" homosexual lifestyle-- Paul condemns the act of homosexuality itself. Therefore, attempting to make a distinction such as this has no merit within the pages of the New Testament.

Argument: But these homosexuals in these committed monogamous relationships have love--and love cannot be wrong!

Answer: This type of answer comes from a mentality foreign to the Scriptures but common in America, where almost anything is possible in the name of "love". The Scriptures distinguish between different forms of love, however, and the Scriptures do not teach that every form of love is justified.

Furthermore, the idea of "love" justifying what God has called sin is not universally applied. Perhaps there is a man who feels that he has just "too much love" for just one woman and needs to "love" two or more, despite the fact that he is only married to one and the other relationships are adulterous! Are his actions of unfaithfulness justifiable because he has so much "love?" By no means! Just because there is a feeling of "love" between two individuals does not mean that their actions are justified by the New Testament. Therefore, homosexuality is still a sin, and thus no one who performs homosexuality can be an evangelist for Christ.

Priests

Some denominations have individuals who are deemed as priests, who fulfill various duties. Is this a Scriptural designation?

In the New Testament, we do not see anyone specifically being referred to as a priest. In fact, Peter says that we are all priests in 1 Peter 2:5 and 9 :

Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.


But ye are a elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.


The only other priest we are told of is the High Priest, who is Christ Jesus (Hebrews 7). All Christians, therefore, represent a priesthood of believers under the High Priest Jesus Christ, who is of the order of Melchizedek.

Ordination

Many denominations go through the process of "ordaining" their evangelists and ministers. Is this a Scriptural practice?

We do not see anyone being "ordained" in the New Testament. Often we will see individuals being given the "laying on of hands," but this appears to be a blessing more than an ordination. In the New Testament, Christians evangelized without needing any special ordination or license. They would only be accepted if they taught the plain truth of Scripture, if the brethren were noble minded ( Acts 17:11 ).

The idea of "ordination", therefore, is not explicitly established in the New Testament, and the idea of evangelists being accredited as such by some form of governing authority, be it a denominational council or center of education, is foreign to the Scriptures.

Synods, Councils, Conventions, and Other Meetings

Many denominations today have meetings wherein representatives of many geographical areas and/or congregations come together at some location to discuss issues within their denomination, and very often decisions will be made at these meetings about where the denomination will stand doctrinally. These meetings have many names in different denominations, including synods, councils, and conventions. Are these types of meetings seen as a function of the church of the New Testament?

When we read the New Testament, we see that there is no such "church cooperation," for every local congregation in the New Testament is autonomous (i.e. making decisions for itself). We see this because the "governing" body of the church, a plurality of elders, was instituted at the level of the local church (cf. Philippians 1:1 , Titus 1:5 ). We do not see any form of governing body beyond the local church.

Many will turn to the council of Acts 15, however, to attempt to justify their synods, councils, meetings, etc., by saying that in this instance the "church universal" met to discuss doctrine. Let us examine Acts 15 to see if this is so.

We see in Acts 15:2-6 the origin of this meeting:

And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and questioning with them, the brethren appointed that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church and the apostles and the elders, and they rehearsed all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, "It is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses."
And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.


While Paul and Barnabas were certainly commissioned by the church in Antioch to discuss this matter with the other Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem, we see that Paul and Barnabas were certainly not the "delegation" from Antioch, but rather represented themselves. The council was comprised, as seen in verse six, of the Apostles and the elders in Jerusalem. We do not see any evidence that anyone else was involved with this meeting. It was natural for the meeting to be held in Jerusalem because such was the origin of the dispute: men from Judea had come to Antioch and had brought this teaching, and therefore it should be in Judea that the matter be settled (cf. Acts 15:1 ). The situation, then, regards persons somewhat associated with one local church visiting another local church to discuss a matter of doctrine perpetuated by members of that latter church.

We see in Acts 15:23 , 2 8 the results of this meeting:

and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting...For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.


We see here that the decision was made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and made specifically by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, and the elders of Jerusalem.

Now, let us return to the question: does the meeting of Acts 15 justify the modern synods, councils, and conventions of denominations today? By no means! The meeting in Acts 15 consisted of the church of Jerusalem and the Apostles-- not delegations from all churches that existed at that time. The decisions made were made on the basis of the determination of the Holy Spirit and the approval of the Apostles and the elders of the church in Jerusalem, not by a majority vote of all members present. Therefore, it is evident that the meeting in Jerusalem seen in Acts 15 cannot justify the modern synods, councils, conventions, etc. of modern denominations.

It may be argued by some of these denominations that their councils and synods are guided by the Holy Spirit and are convened by the successors of the Apostles. The difficulty with this argument is that the meeting in Acts 15 was still not a meeting of all the "bishops" of the region, but only of the church of Jerusalem along with the Apostles. The belief of inspiration by the Holy Spirit and the belief of the bishopric still does not harmonize with Acts 15. Therefore, we may see that such synods, councils, conventions, and so forth are not practices performed in the New Testament.