Who's authorized to baptize whom?

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yes to heirarchy, hence "greater gifts."
ok, the lex seems to bear "governments" out closely enough, so i would attack the premise that because God set these out in the Church does not mean that God set them out in a church...i guess unless your church government is...chosen by lot? Or even by the prescribed method, which the passage is eluding me at the moment. Pretty sure there is one...

Just a thought I just had when reading back down through this thread. When Paul or NT writer speaks of "the body of Christ" why do we assume he is speaking in relationship to a local assembly? The body of Christ is not just the local assembly, but the whole constituency of the church.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Just a thought I just had when reading back down through this thread. When Paul or NT writer speaks of "the body of Christ" why do we assume he is speaking in relationship to a local assembly? The body of Christ is not just the local assembly, but the whole constituency of the church.

The church is local. It cannot be otherwise.

[votivesoul]

1. Why does he say 'first... secondarily... thirdly... after that...'? Do those terms imply any sort of hierarchy, and if so, of what kind? If not, why not?

2. What does he mean that God has set in the church 'governments'? Why is that listed as a gifting of certain members of the body? How does that gift operate?

First, I would like to preface my remarks as follows:

The term "hierarchy" always seems to imply a vertical relationship, between what is above and what is below, so for me, I would rather move away from that term (I note, too, how a very literal denotation of hierarchy is "priests who rule", ostensibly over other priests, something which I don't believe jives right with the greater testimony of New Testament Ecclesiology).

Notwithstanding, I don't have a better term to offer. Now then...

What I see in 1 Corinthians 12:28 is not a top down order of importance, but rather, a horizontal movement across a line, in which apostles necessarily come first, as those who primarily bear witness to the Resurrection, and so, were the ones entrusted with the rise of Christianity as an extension of the Judaic faith, and for the continued proliferation of the same into new territories, followed closely by prophets, or those who declare the intimate mind of Christ for the Christ-following believers, so that the Christ-following believers may remain in constant contact and spiritual fellowship with their Christ--upon which, along with Christ Himself acting as chief cornerstone, make up the foundation of the Body of Messiah; Ephesians 2:19-21--after which comes teachers, or those who must indoctrinate the saints into the tenets of the faith, so that the "ever learning but never able" crowd from 2 Timothy 3:7 don't infiltrate and influence the community of believers.

Following these three gifts to the Church (cf. Ephesians 4:11), Paul lists a few gifts of the Spirit, or those charismata that, in the 1st century, constantly drew in new members to the faith, more so than any of the others, when the testimony of Acts is taken into account.

Next on this horizontal line, Paul enunciates "helps", or those who offer various forms of assistance to the Body, whether physical, social, economical, or spiritual, as needed.

Finally, to get to the bones of your questions, we come to "governments", followed by diversities of tongues, or those other charismata necessary to a regular edification of the Body at large.

Governments, according to all the major lexicons, refers to "pilotage", as the ones responsible for steering or guiding a vessel as she goes (See Strong's, Vincent's, Robertson, and Vine's, for example).

If the church then, should be compared to a sailing ship, the pilot would be the one whose hand was on the wheel that controlled the tiller that controlled the rudder, that caused the vessel to veer this way or that, as the wind filled the sails. His was not to decide the direction or destination, but merely to follow the orders of the captain, so they could arrive safely to harbor.

In such an analogy, those who "pilot" the church don't decide the direction or destination; they merely receive their orders from the Captain, as it were, which is the Head, even Christ.

Said another way, they aren't in charge of the vessel, or own it whatsoever; rather they merely make sure it's going in the proper direction so she may arrive at her already decided upon destination, of which, for our purposes, is heaven. And as long as the winds of the Holy Spirit continue to fill her sails, she will one day arrive.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

First, I would like to preface my remarks as follows:

The term "hierarchy" always seems to imply a vertical relationship, between what is above and what is below, so for me, I would rather move away from that term (I note, too, how a very literal denotation of hierarchy is "priests who rule", ostensibly over other priests, something which I don't believe jives right with the greater testimony of New Testament Ecclesiology).

Notwithstanding, I don't have a better term to offer. Now then...

What I see in 1 Corinthians 12:28 is not a top down order of importance, but rather, a horizontal movement across a line, in which apostles necessarily come first, as those who primarily bear witness to the Resurrection, and so, were the ones entrusted with the rise of Christianity as an extension of the Judaic faith, and for the continued proliferation of the same into new territories, followed closely by prophets, or those who declare the intimate mind of Christ for the Christ-following believers, so that the Christ-following believers may remain in constant contact and spiritual fellowship with their Christ--upon which, along with Christ Himself acting as chief cornerstone, make up the foundation of the Body of Messiah; Ephesians 2:19-21--after which comes teachers, or those who must indoctrinate the saints into the tenets of the faith, so that the "ever learning but never able" crowd from 2 Timothy 3:7 don't infiltrate and influence the community of believers.

Following these three gifts to the Church (cf. Ephesians 4:11), Paul lists a few gifts of the Spirit, or those charismata that, in the 1st century, constantly drew in new members to the faith, more so than any of the others, when the testimony of Acts is taken into account.

Next on this horizontal line, Paul enunciates "helps", or those who offer various forms of assistance to the Body, whether physical, social, economical, or spiritual, as needed.

Finally, to get to the bones of your questions, we come to "governments", followed by diversities of tongues, or those other charismata necessary to a regular edification of the Body at large.

Governments, according to all the major lexicons, refers to "pilotage", as the ones responsible for steering or guiding a vessel as she goes (See Strong's, Vincent's, Robertson, and Vine's, for example).

If the church then, should be compared to a sailing ship, the pilot would be the one whose hand was on the wheel that controlled the tiller that controlled the rudder, that caused the vessel to veer this way or that, as the wind filled the sails. His was not to decide the direction or destination, but merely to follow the orders of the captain, so they could arrive safely to harbor.

In such an analogy, those who "pilot" the church don't decide the direction or destination; they merely receive their orders from the Captain, as it were, which is the Head, even Christ.

Said another way, they aren't in charge of the vessel, or own it whatsoever; rather they merely make sure it's going in the proper direction so she may arrive at her already decided upon destination, of which, for our purposes, is heaven. And as long as the winds of the Holy Spirit continue to fill her sails, she will one day arrive.

Wouldn't the apostles, prophets, and teachers be involved in 'piloting' the churches? Or does that refer moreso to those who would become elders?

One thing else, it has been my sneaky suspicion that all of these gifts are determined by the operation of the Spirit in a person's life. In other words, the one who is used by the Spirit to instruct others is the one who is 'teacher', the one who feeds and gives guidance to others by the Spirit the one who is 'pastor', etc. Or in other words still, none of these are 'positions' as we often think of them, but manifestations of the Spirit through individuals. 'You are what you do', if that makes any sense?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wouldn't the apostles, prophets, and teachers be involved in 'piloting' the churches? Or does that refer moreso to those who would become elders?

I see their responsibility more in the training and upbringing of those who will become elders, so that, in the church, the manifestation of the Spirit you speak of below, can take place. In this regard, the apostles and prophets lay a foundation upon which the teacher can build, upon which the elders can learn to walk and hear from God and make certain the direction the church is taking is truly led by the Spirit.

One thing else, it has been my sneaky suspicion that all of these gifts are determined by the operation of the Spirit in a person's life. In other words, the one who is used by the Spirit to instruct others is the one who is 'teacher', the one who feeds and gives guidance to others by the Spirit the one who is 'pastor', etc. Or in other words still, none of these are 'positions' as we often think of them, but manifestations of the Spirit through individuals. 'You are what you do', if that makes any sense?

I agree. Such gifts from the Lord are functions, not positions, per se. They detail the manner in which the Lord makes use of a person. For example, I know a prophet. He is a prophet because the Lord prophesies through him. It's not because he was given an office, but because he received an invitation to receive a gift and charismata, by the Spirit, and took the Lord up on His offer, and now, he prophesies as a prophet.

I also believe that these gifts are to be recognized by the local assembly as they begin to show up, or said a better way, as the Lord begins to reveal them in the life of whichever individual believer He invites to receive such a gifting, and they are to be nurtured.

I note, for example, that when the apostles gave the Jerusalem church the stipulations for who could become a deacon, the church already found it possible to easily nominate 7 men who were ALREADY equipped by the Lord to become what they eventually became, that is, the church saw in these seven men the right stuff to form a successful deaconate.

Additionally, Agabus was readily recognized as a prophet wherever he went.

I look at Corinth, and I see Paul say they came behind in no gift, and yet, they were completely amiss in how their gifts ought to function for the edification of the Body. Prophets were talking over each other, women were getting in the way and were not submitting to their husbands, some were drowning everyone out in tongues, others doubted Paul's apostolic ministry, while others were putting him, or Apollos, or Cephas up on too high a pedestal.

All of this created division. They needed serious help. Many there were boasting about their speaking abilities, or were attempting to show how wise and noble they were, and etc. Some, it would seem, were even infiltrators, attempting to blaspheme and curse the Lord alleging the Spirit bade them to do so. Others were getting drunk at their love feasts and were not discerning the Lord's body as it related to the poor.

Paul had to set a lot straight to get through to them, because they, as I understand the situation, were jockeying for position based off of the gifts the Lord had given them.

Instead of realizing how they could all function together, each in his own calling, in order to create a holy temple for the Lord and His Spirit, so that sinners could fall down on their face before the believers and confess God was truly in their midst, they were contrasting their gifts against one another, and using their gifts in such a way that they might attempt to claim superiority over one another.

It would seem, I fear, much like much of the modern day, apostolic church of the United States, if nowhere else.

[Esaias]

Good post. +1

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Paul had to set a lot straight to get through to them, because they, as I understand the situation, were jockeying for position based off of the gifts the Lord had given them.

Instead of realizing how they could all function together, each in his own calling, in order to create a holy temple for the Lord and His Spirit, so that sinners could fall down on their face before the believers and confess God was truly in their midst, they were contrasting their gifts against one another, and using their gifts in such a way that they might attempt to claim superiority over one another.

It would seem, I fear, much like much of the modern day, apostolic church of the United States, if nowhere else.

I've stated the same thing. Amen. Most Spirit-filled churches, not just apostolic.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The church is local. It cannot be otherwise.

hmm, i was hoping GD would respond to this. i guess i mostly object to the "it cannot be otherwise" part. The Church is also Universal, wherever two or more are gathered, and i have seen It's manifestation--possibly even more clearly--among people i could not even speak with, for lack of a common human language. So, the church is inbred, in a sense. It cannot be otherwise.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm, i was hoping GD would respond to this. i guess i mostly object to the "it cannot be otherwise" part. The Church is also Universal, wherever two or more are gathered, and i have seen It's manifestation--possibly even more clearly--among people i could not even speak with, for lack of a common human language. So, the church is inbred, in a sense. It cannot be otherwise.

Wherever two or three are gathered... that's local.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wherever two or three are gathered... that's local.

i agree it has a locality to it, but dislike the inevitable division that is implied with the "them" that is created in the perspective. To put it in kind of an absurd way, for illustration, i can gather in Christ's Name with someone on the other side of the planet now--although i would not deny that the local aspect is an important one, for other considerations, acting upon local knowledge for some endeavor etc.