Post by Danny on Jul 29, 2006 22:26:59 GMT -5
Apostolic tradition, also called apostolic custom, apostolic patterns, New Testament patterns, or New Testament practice, means imitating the practices of the apostles. When scripture does not specifically command us to imitate a certain practice of the apostles, should we still follow it?
by Steve Atkerson
uppose a newly planted, first century congregation in Alexandria , Egypt , wrote a letter to the Twelve apostles in Jerusalem . Imagine that this church consisted of Jewish believers who had heard the gospel on a visit to Jerusalem . Now that they were back home in Egypt , they didn’t quite know what to do next about organizing as a new church. So, in their letter to the apostles was a series of questions about church life:
"Dear Apostles . . .
Why is it that we meet together as God’s people?
What should we do in our meetings?
How often should we meet?
Does it matter where we meet?
Should we build a temple like in Jerusalem or at least a synagogue building?
What type of church government should we have?
What should we look for in church leaders?
Do we even need leaders?
What is the purpose of the Lord’s Supper?
How often should we eat it? Annually, like Passover?
Should we eat the Lord’s Supper as a true meal or a token ritual?"
How do you suppose the twelve apostles would have answered their letter? Would they have written that each church was free to do whatever it wanted to do? That each fellowship should just pray and follow the Holy Spirit’s leading? That each congregation should be unique and different, free from outside influence?Conversely, might the apostles have answered with very specific instructions for church life? With a particular way of doing things? With a definite agenda? With unmistakable guidelines?
This issue has been faced by believers for the past two thousand years. How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.
Suppose we accepted the notion that New Testament church patterns are not to be normative. Into what might this lead us?
1. We could construct a massive, opulent cathedral.
2. We could meet on Tuesday rather than on Sunday, the Lord’s Day.
3. We could meet monthly, rather than weekly.
4. We might also opt to have no leaders at all (no pastors, no elders, no deacons) since no where in Scripture are we directly commanded to have any.
5. We could have absolutely no form of church government whatsoever, since no particular form of government is commanded in Scripture. Ours will be rule by anarchy! Every man can just do what is right in his own eyes in fulfillment of Judges 21:25.
6. The Lord’s Supper can be celebrated every ten years or so (we wouldn’t want it to become too common and lose its significance).
7. Since the New Testament does not specifically prohibit it, we can swell our membership ranks by baptizing infants, or maybe even the deceased (1Co 15:29 ).
8. New believers could be organized into loose confederations of Bible studies, not official churches, since the New Testament never states we must form churches.
Obviously, this hypothetical church would be quite absurd. Yet, arguably, it would violate no positive command of Scripture. What it would be missing is at least a partial adherence to New Testament traditions for church practice. Most churches do follow some of the patterns of the New Testament, but not all of the patterns. Our question is: Why not?
This book argues for consistency. We propose that the apostles had a definite and very particular way in which they organized churches. We are convinced that they intended for all congregations to follow these same apostolic traditions, for as long as the church exists.
by Steve Atkerson
uppose a newly planted, first century congregation in Alexandria , Egypt , wrote a letter to the Twelve apostles in Jerusalem . Imagine that this church consisted of Jewish believers who had heard the gospel on a visit to Jerusalem . Now that they were back home in Egypt , they didn’t quite know what to do next about organizing as a new church. So, in their letter to the apostles was a series of questions about church life:
"Dear Apostles . . .
Why is it that we meet together as God’s people?
What should we do in our meetings?
How often should we meet?
Does it matter where we meet?
Should we build a temple like in Jerusalem or at least a synagogue building?
What type of church government should we have?
What should we look for in church leaders?
Do we even need leaders?
What is the purpose of the Lord’s Supper?
How often should we eat it? Annually, like Passover?
Should we eat the Lord’s Supper as a true meal or a token ritual?"
How do you suppose the twelve apostles would have answered their letter? Would they have written that each church was free to do whatever it wanted to do? That each fellowship should just pray and follow the Holy Spirit’s leading? That each congregation should be unique and different, free from outside influence?Conversely, might the apostles have answered with very specific instructions for church life? With a particular way of doing things? With a definite agenda? With unmistakable guidelines?
This issue has been faced by believers for the past two thousand years. How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?
The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.
Suppose we accepted the notion that New Testament church patterns are not to be normative. Into what might this lead us?
1. We could construct a massive, opulent cathedral.
2. We could meet on Tuesday rather than on Sunday, the Lord’s Day.
3. We could meet monthly, rather than weekly.
4. We might also opt to have no leaders at all (no pastors, no elders, no deacons) since no where in Scripture are we directly commanded to have any.
5. We could have absolutely no form of church government whatsoever, since no particular form of government is commanded in Scripture. Ours will be rule by anarchy! Every man can just do what is right in his own eyes in fulfillment of Judges 21:25.
6. The Lord’s Supper can be celebrated every ten years or so (we wouldn’t want it to become too common and lose its significance).
7. Since the New Testament does not specifically prohibit it, we can swell our membership ranks by baptizing infants, or maybe even the deceased (1Co 15:29 ).
8. New believers could be organized into loose confederations of Bible studies, not official churches, since the New Testament never states we must form churches.
Obviously, this hypothetical church would be quite absurd. Yet, arguably, it would violate no positive command of Scripture. What it would be missing is at least a partial adherence to New Testament traditions for church practice. Most churches do follow some of the patterns of the New Testament, but not all of the patterns. Our question is: Why not?
This book argues for consistency. We propose that the apostles had a definite and very particular way in which they organized churches. We are convinced that they intended for all congregations to follow these same apostolic traditions, for as long as the church exists.