Tags
In this third bulletin article on church history, the book I have been gleaning my material from has expressed the importance of the Church’s inward growth. By that is meant the growth in doctrine (teaching) and organization.
Interestingly the author of this church history book spoke truly when he said “[t]he theory that doctrine is not important is not only shallow and foolish, it is also crafty. It is one of the devil’s best tricks” (The Church in History, Kuiper, p.15). It’s unfortunate, however, when he mentions that from the first through the early portion of the fourth century the organization and doctrine developed (p. 16). Of course, this is true when viewed from the perspective of man-made institution, but from the perspective of the Holy Spirit this is not true at all. Peter wrote that at the time he lived all things that pertained unto life and godliness had been revealed (2 Peter 1:3; cf. Jude 3). Paul stated it this way: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NKJV).
There are a number of doctrinal items worthy of discussion in this bulletin article, but only one that I want to reference now: “the development of the episcopate.” This is the title of the section dealing with how the church developed a doctrine wherein one man stood above and before others. In fact, “[b]y the middle of the second century practically all churches had monarchical bishops” (p. 20).
The term “monarchical bishop” is a term for a single man who rules alone in a particular religious community. The reason for this single-man rule, we are told, was because of the heresy of the day (known as Gnosticism and Montanists) needed to be opposed and this was best accomplished in one man. We are told the “Church had to establish its position as the authority who decided the meaning of the Bible” (p. 18), and this was exercised through the episcopate or monarchical bishop. This was (and is) a most unfortunate sentiment because it dismisses (unintentionally, I believe) what the Lord’s revealed word had already determined. “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12, NKJV).
When the Lord gave His charge to the apostles to take His message into all the world, He gave them and those they taught (2 Timothy 2:2) the adequate tools to thwart the fiery darts of Satan. Man, in his own wisdom, decided to set aside that which the Lord taught and make some adjustments to the pattern set forth by the Lord. This presumptuous action, even if it was done with good intentions, puts both the teacher and those taught in a precarious position (at best).
In this same church history book the author clearly recognizes that in the New Testament this form of leadership (government) is not present. “At first the organization of the Church was very simple. The officers were the elders and deacons. The elders were known as presbyters, since presbyter is the Greek word for ‘elder’” (p. 19, italics in original). Thus, based on what we just read, the Lord’s simple plan was made more complex by man. Herein is the problem; “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12).
Our challenge is to stay true and fiercely adhere to the teachings of the New Testament. If one would simply allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves, then man’s complex ways could be dismissed. The sacred Scriptures need to be put exactly where the Lord placed them: as the revealed pathway of life (2 Corinthians 5:7; Romans 10:17).
etsop95 
When he writes that the doctrine of the church was developing during those early centuries, I wonder if he has even read the writings of those Christians. There may have been the stylistic changes during that time, but from the late first century to the beginning of the fourth, the church’s doctrine was the same.
The author is correct about the beginning of the episcopate. It was common practice by the middle or end of the second century. The early Christians had a bishop over the house churches in each city and presbyters and deacons within each house church. The first Christian to write about the bishop being different from the presbyters was Ignatius (about 107 AD). Yes, this is different from what we read in Scripture. But what makes this so fascinating is that Ignatius was a personal student of the apostle John himself.
We are left with two options. One, the practice of having one bishop over the churches in each city was developed immediately after the death of the apostles and became an empire-wide structure by all churches by the end of the second century. Two, the apostle John instructed Christians to have one bishop over the churches within each city and we just don’t have any other writings by John to prove this.
On one hand, I see that the role of the bishop is outside of Scripture. On the other hand, I see that every church in the entire world gained this practice within one century after the death of the apostles. If the one-bishop structure was so anti-New Testament, then there would have been some churches who refused to adopt it. But there weren’t. Of course, when it comes to doctrines and practice that were clearly anti-New Testament, they were quick to reject those.
Peter and Paul seem to be abundantly clear that the role of a bishop and an elder are the same thing.
Now the role of popes (300s AD), archbishops (300s AD), and cardinals (400s AD) were completely foreign to the church until the fourth century. These roles are in no way described in Scripture.
“If the one-bishop structure was so anti-New Testament, then there would have been some churches who refused to adopt it. But there weren’t.”
Whether there was or not, Andrew, that the NT speaks of one structure, and others altered that structure (with good intentions or otherwise) is going beyond the teachings of the Lord.
Yes. …unless the apostle John instructed it before he died.
Personally, I believe he did not because Peter and Paul uses presbyter and bishop interchangeably. But who knows? We might find evidence that John did instruct the role of bishop. Until that time, I would rather follow what is more clear in Scripture.