voting or casting lots

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Peter’s words in Acts 1:21-22 gives four points that must be met before a man could be “numbered with” the originally chosen twelve apostles. Without these four qualifications, no one could biblically be a “part of this” specific “ministry” (see Acts 1:17, Acts 1:25). The following is a list of these four points and whether or not Judas, Matthias, or Paul met their criterion:

1. men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us (verse 21)

Judas—Yes
Matthias—Yes
Paul—No

2. Beginning from the baptism of John (verse 22)

Judas—Yes
Matthias—Yes
Paul—No

3. unto that same day that he was taken up from us, (verse 22)

Judas—Yes
Matthias—Yes
Paul—No

4. must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. (verse 22)

Judas—Yes
Matthias—Yes
Paul—No

We know that Judas and Matthias met these four points. However, Paul did not, and as a result, Paul could not have been Judas’ replacement. This importance of this four-point criterion has witness in the New Testament, as seen in this verse:

Matthew 19:27-28
(27) Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
(28) And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 10:39-41
(39) And we are witnesses of all that he did both in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They put him to death by hanging him on a tree,
(40) but God raised him on the third day and made him to appear,
(41) not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

Luke 22:28-30
(28) Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
(29) And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
(30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

1 Peter 5:1
(1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

After the Holy Ghost fell, the Bible says Matthias was God’s choice to replace Judas. This is found in Acts 2:14. There it says, “Peter, standing up with the eleven…” The “eleven” plus Peter equals 12 apostles. This is inspired scripture so I have to believe this math is accurate.

Excellent and concise!

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Excellent and concise!

Thank you. It’s part of an unfinished study I did on the twelfth apostle. Because of this thread I decided to finish it for my website.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Thank you. It’s part of an unfinished study I did on the twelfth apostle. Because of this thread I decided to finish it for my website.

Thank you

[Aquila]

So, it appears that elders/bishops/pastors (or whatever we wish to call them) ordained elders within the church after much prayer. I think they may have voted... or... perhaps they prayed until there was a general consensus regarding who was to be ordained.

[Amanah]

I'm thankful for the teachers we have on AFF. I have learned so much here. We have amazing teachers.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, it appears that elders/bishops/pastors (or whatever we wish to call them) ordained elders within the church after much prayer. I think they may have voted... or... perhaps they prayed until there was a general consensus regarding who was to be ordained.

I believe you're right about the prayer. Of course, prayer should always be the first thing done before any such decision is made. We know the Apostles prayed before choosing between Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. (see Acts 1:24) After asking God for wisdom and guidance, the men displaying signs of Eldership, and who were faithful to meet the criteria in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, they were recognized for their particular five-fold ministry's calling. (see 1 Timothy 1:18, Titus 1:5; Acts 14:23; 2 Timothy 2:2) This recognition came with the laying on of hands. (see 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:22, 2 Timothy 1:6) Timothy was "charged" to fulfill his ministry according to prophecies that came before the recognition of his calling. (see 1 Timothy 1:18) Thus, the assembly of believers recognized Timothy's specific position within the five-fold ministry, which many believe was an evangelist.

I'm not sure if the above qualifies as a "vote," but it certainly agrees that it was a "consensus" recognition.

I do not see why Apostolics today should not pursue their leadership the same way Apostolics did in the early Church. Sadly, many (most all?) Apostolics are under a completely different method of "choosing" a pastor. Their method would be very foreign to their early Church brethren. To have a pastor chosen for them because he is their current pastor's son or son-in-law is nothing like the method used in the Bible. I'm not saying these appointed men are necessarily ungodly or wrong choices, but there are too many cases where men put men in pulpits who were not called to be there.

Then there's the voting in of a pastor. Most of these candidates are "invited" to "try out" the church to see if it's a good fit. Often these invitations are sent by a source that does not attend that local congregation. Sometimes they're sent by the current pastor to men he wants to replace him. Then the candidate receiving the most votes gets the job. Sounds like Apostolics Got Talent, doesn't it? What causes a church member to vote for one man over another? Often it's a candidate's charisma, or it's his oratory skill in the pulpit, or it's how popular he his is within an organization, or it's because he has the suffix "Dr" before his name, or it's due to the current pastor's persuasion. Again, it's not that those things are necessarily bad, but none of them are found in what's written in 1 Timothy 3 or Titus 1.

What would it take to return to choosing leadership like they did in the early church? For starts, like most doctrine restorations, the believer first must disregard any manmade traditions or personal feelings they may have about this, and then learn what biblically they need to be taught. Men love saying "God is their pilot," that is until they move Him to the co-pilot seat because their lack of faith says He needs their help. That said, I believe the largest holdup to this is it requires absolute faith in God's ability to choose the leaders He wants. God included in His Word the principles that must be met before a man is available for Eldership. And, Paul warned the Church to "lay hands on no man suddenly." (1 Timothy 5:22) So, no man should be ordained unless those doing the ordination knows that man meets the biblical requirements to be God's choice.

[Esaias]

Timothy and Titus were told by Paul to ordain elders. These elders are "bishops", that is, overseers, and seem to fit the role that we usually ascribe to the "Pastor". Now, Paul was an apostle, and had authority over the churches he had established. In modern parlance, Paul was a missionary, tasked with going into areas where there was no church, preaching to the lost, and taking those whom the Lord saved and welding them into a community of believers (a church). Either he, or those whom he appointed to fulfill that apostolic ministry in his absence (like Timothy and Titus, who appear to have functioned as Paul's representatives), would then at some point ordain elders/overseers who would assume responsibility for the continued oversight of the church and the continuation of the teaching and pastoral ministries.

But it does not appear Paul or Timothy or Titus ordained elders in a vacuum. The list of qualifications of elders he gave them includes the qualifications of "deacons" ("ministers" or "servants"). Also, his epistles to Timothy and Titus appear to have been intended to be read by all the church, which would imply that the church needed to know what the qualifications for overseers and ministers were as well. And this implies the church had some input as to who was to be viewed as qualified.

Which hearkens back to the appointment of the Seven, in Acts 6. The apostles told the church to put forward seven men, and the apostles ordained them to their specific ministry (in this case, it was the distribution of material aid to the widows of the church).

Which in turn hearkens back to the appointment of the replacement for Judas Iscariot. In that case, again the whole congregation was consulted. The church was to identify the candidates, and the apostles were to confirm through prayer and the laying on of hands the one(s) to be ordained.

So the apostolic practice seems to be not quite merely appointment by leadership, nor merely congregational vote, majority rule, or even unaminous consent. Rather, it seems to have been a combination of both leadership and congregation working together. Where the congregation puts forward candidates that would be acceptable to the congregation, and then existing leadership (oversight) after prayer would either approve the congregation's choice(s), or would select from among the put-forward candidate list.

If the congregation put forward choices that leadership did not approve of, obviously there would need to be some discussion on the part of everyone involved (as occurred with the Acts 15 church meeting, where the whole congregation, the elders, and the apostles were all involved in discussing, praying about, and eventually resolving the issue to everyone's satisfaction).

The pattern seems to be a missionary preacher enters a new area, preaches the gospel, the Lord saves whom He will, the missionary preacher is then primarily tasked with taking that new, core group from beginner level to relative self-sufficiency, then informs the congregation they need elders from amongst themselves. The church puts forward one or more candidates (depending on the size of the church and its needs) who will serve as overseers and servants, and (assuming everything is kosher) the missionary or his representative ordains these ministers.

Now, the church has some functioning leadership, and the missionary can continue his mission in the next location (usually nearby). He will continue to function as an overseer or elder but will in effect begin to "fade" in the hands on maintenance of that church as its own indigenous eldership and ministry assume those functions. As the church grows, and as time goes on, new ministers and new overseers will be required, and the cycle is repeated this time with the existing overseers (elders) functioning in the place of the original apostolic missionary.

This way, all leadership and ministry in a church is indigenous to that assembly (not imported from outside except during the church planter's initial efforts).

Seems like that would be the Biblical way to do it.

How many existing churches would be willing to do it that way? I'm skeptical but you never know...